Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[Quantum Windbag]

So a high security navy yard is now an easy target? Unbelievable.

Of course high security areas are easy targets. People rely on the security to keep someone dangerous from getting in. Once they are in, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Now the gunman can rely on that security to make sure no one else is armed that could stop him.

No, they are not easy targets

A shopping mall is an easy target. No armed security. Easy entry. Quick escape
A military base has armed guards at the gates, MPs, dogs. Once an incident occurs it goes under lockdown. Hard to get in, impossible to get out

Want an area with a high percentage of armed civilians? Try any gang controlled area in America. Pull your gun and start shooting there is a high percentage someone will fire back
Yet they have the highest murder rates in the country.....some deterrent

What an amazing display of ignorance and racism.

By the way, the reason gang areas have high murder rates is that the law abiding non gang members do not have guns, so the gangs are free to kill people who dis them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So a high security navy yard is now an easy target? Unbelievable.

Of course high security areas are easy targets. People rely on the security to keep someone dangerous from getting in. Once they are in, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Now the gunman can rely on that security to make sure no one else is armed that could stop him.

What about the 2 police he shot? Just fish in a barrel?

What about the weapons he took from them? Would an assault weapons ban have prevented him from killing the cops and stealing their weapons?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What about the 2 police he shot? Just fish in a barrel?

He shot them like fish in a barrel.
So much for high security huh?

Your gun control laws killed these people, because your dogma, your fanatical liberal dogma, matters more to you than the victims right to self defense.

So he shot 2 highly trained police and you think a concealed carry person would make a difference? Really?

A highly trained individual in combat is a person who has gone through boot camp, applied for special training and got it, runs miles every day, and knows how to react when he is caught flat footed because he thought he was safe.

What made the police highly trained?

 

[Brain357]

Yeah, the district attorney's office. Many DAs have cc permits, and keep their weapons on them at all times. I know because my sister was one of them.

Well that covers almost none of the population. Thanks.

Where do you think the DA is housed?

The courthouse.

How many county employees at our county courthouses?

Thank you for proving, again, that you are completely ignorant of the topic you have chosen to expel gas about.

So are all employees at the courthouse allowed to carry then?

Btw I had asked for companies. You fail again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, they are not easy targets

A shopping mall is an easy target. No armed security. Easy entry. Quick escape
A military base has armed guards at the gates, MPs, dogs. Once an incident occurs it goes under lockdown. Hard to get in, impossible to get out

Want an area with a high percentage of armed civilians? Try any gang controlled area in America. Pull your gun and start shooting there is a high percentage someone will fire back
Yet they have the highest murder rates in the country.....some deterrent

pretty piss poor analogy RW.....

The premise is that gun violence will not occur in areas with a high concentration of civilian gun owners. Gang areas have large percentages of armed citizens yet it doesn't deter them in the least

Gang areas do not have high concentrations of armed civilians because they are usually in cities that ban guns. El Paso Texas, on the other hand, does have high concentrations of armed civilians, is less than 100 feet from one of the most violent cites in Mexico, and is still one of the safest cities in the US. It also has no gang areas because there is no gun control so the civilians are armed.

If you weren't a racist that would make sense to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And police can tell a cc owner from the shooter?

Usually the CC holder isnt the one taking potshots at unarmed people.

I don't think it's so obvious in a situation like this.

Generally, the guy with the multiple long guns is not the CC holder, and the guy that you see at the water cooler every morning who is barricaded in a room protecting other people is.

Just a thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think it's so obvious in a situation like this.

What is obvious is you're a nitwit. I really don't think in the history of mass shootings there has ever been an instance of people not knowing *which* person is the deranged nutbag.

YOU probably have difficulty discerning, which says more about your perceptions than it does about the reality of these situations. I have never heard of a CC person accidentally taking out another CC person when putting an end to a shooting. Perhaps you have different information. If you do, then share it. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

A CC owner almost shot the wrong guy at the Tucson shooting.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/
Guess your the nitwit

He didn't which proves he is smarter than you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Two Colorado state legislators who were engaged in an attack on civil rights were recalled. Their recall was a serious blow to the move to disarm the American peasantry.

Couple of weeks later, someone goes on a mass shooting spree.

Obama is incredibly lucky this way, every time his war on civil rights starts to fail, there is a mass shooting.......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Almost shot" = "didn't shoot".

Got it.

Proving its not so easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. You lose.

If he had shot the wrong person, you would have a point. Since he didn't, all you have is pathos.

 

[Brain357]

What is obvious is you're a nitwit. I really don't think in the history of mass shootings there has ever been an instance of people not knowing *which* person is the deranged nutbag.

YOU probably have difficulty discerning, which says more about your perceptions than it does about the reality of these situations. I have never heard of a CC person accidentally taking out another CC person when putting an end to a shooting. Perhaps you have different information. If you do, then share it. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

A CC owner almost shot the wrong guy at the Tucson shooting.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/
Guess your the nitwit

He didn't which proves he is smarter than you are.

It proves your wrong about the shooter being easy to pick out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The person firing the weapon is a criminal
Y
It is obvious he is not afraid of armed civilians in gang areas. If so, he would be afraid to shoot....statistics show they are not in the least afraid of people firing back

so the left wing solution is just let them keep blasting away unopposed. cool. sounds like a recipe for mass killings

And the right solution is to ignore what every other developed nation has done and keep adding more guns. We've been doing that for a while now. Doesn't seem to be working.

My solution is to examine all the evidence and draw a conclusion based on it. If you think you have enough evidence to prove your point, start a thread in the CDZ, lay it out, and let intelligent people prove you wrong.

Alternatively, you can pretend you are a brain.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, they are not easy targets

A shopping mall is an easy target. No armed security. Easy entry. Quick escape
A military base has armed guards at the gates, MPs, dogs. Once an incident occurs it goes under lockdown. Hard to get in, impossible to get out

Want an area with a high percentage of armed civilians? Try any gang controlled area in America. Pull your gun and start shooting there is a high percentage someone will fire back
Yet they have the highest murder rates in the country.....some deterrent

pretty piss poor analogy RW.....

The premise is that gun violence will not occur in areas with a high concentration of civilian gun owners. Gang areas have large percentages of armed citizens yet it doesn't deter them in the least

the people they are shooting are themselves at 3 AM in the morning.....if its in the daytime its usually shooting at one another across a park and one of the kids in between them get killed or its a driveby......gang areas also have a pretty good intimidation factor to the people who live there....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't say that. Just pointing out your solution isn't very good.

In a mass shooting, no solution is going to be good. What you want to do is give people the ability to defend themselves, not just the security people the ability to defend themselves.

What is it I want to do?

So you would force companies to allow employees and customers to carry guns? And once they are allowed to everyone would carry and we'd be safe? Issue guns to people visiting our country so they can be safe?

You are the one that is using force by not allowing companies and individuals to decide for themselves.

 

[Brain357]

Of course high security areas are easy targets. People rely on the security to keep someone dangerous from getting in. Once they are in, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Now the gunman can rely on that security to make sure no one else is armed that could stop him.

What about the 2 police he shot? Just fish in a barrel?

What about the weapons he took from them? Would an assault weapons ban have prevented him from killing the cops and stealing their weapons?

I guess good guys with guns made the situation worse.

 

[Brain357]

In a mass shooting, no solution is going to be good. What you want to do is give people the ability to defend themselves, not just the security people the ability to defend themselves.

What is it I want to do?

So you would force companies to allow employees and customers to carry guns? And once they are allowed to everyone would carry and we'd be safe? Issue guns to people visiting our country so they can be safe?

You are the one that is using force by not allowing companies and individuals to decide for themselves.

Making things up again. When did I say that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And the right solution is to ignore what every other developed nation has done and keep adding more guns. We've been doing that for a while now. Doesn't seem to be working.

Actually, America doesn't make the list of the top 100 nations based on homicide rates. And if you isolated the few counties/boroughs in which so many of the gang-related murders occur, the rest of the country would have a murder rate akin to Japan...without the monstrously high suicide rate.

The solution is to not prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves and to keep VIOLENT criminals in prison longer. A third tactic, which does potentially tread on civil liberties, is to loosen the rules that allow for the incarceration of seemingly mentally unstable persons in mental health facilities. Of course, the ACLU would be all over that one.

So rather than strengthen background checks just throw everyone in jail. Ah freedom.

Strengthen them how? Right now, with the pathetically weak checks you seem to think exist, people who have never done anything illegal, and have never even spoken to a psych, are denied the ability to buy guns because the system is designed to create false positives. Do you want it to come up with more false positives, or do you want to register guns in the guise of closing a loophole that doesn't exist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is it I want to do?

So you would force companies to allow employees and customers to carry guns? And once they are allowed to everyone would carry and we'd be safe? Issue guns to people visiting our country so they can be safe?

If you go through the process of becoming a CCW holder, you should be able to carry your weapon unless the owner of the facility does not want you to. In that case the owner has to take responsibility for your safety in the case of an incident.

Here the owner is the government, and it banned CCW holders from being armed. it then took the responsibility for people's safety, and it failed in that responsibility. It should be liable for the damages done.

What shouldnt happen is that gun grabbers use this as excuse to curtail my rights to own a firearm.

Do you know any company that allows employees to bring guns to work?

Yes.

 

[Brain357]

If you go through the process of becoming a CCW holder, you should be able to carry your weapon unless the owner of the facility does not want you to. In that case the owner has to take responsibility for your safety in the case of an incident.

Here the owner is the government, and it banned CCW holders from being armed. it then took the responsibility for people's safety, and it failed in that responsibility. It should be liable for the damages done.

What shouldnt happen is that gun grabbers use this as excuse to curtail my rights to own a firearm.

Do you know any company that allows employees to bring guns to work?

Yes.

That's a major company. Thanks for adding so much to the topic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A CC owner almost shot the wrong guy at the Tucson shooting.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/
Guess your the nitwit

He didn't which proves he is smarter than you are.

It proves your wrong about the shooter being easy to pick out.

I don't recall saying it was easy. If it was easy you could do it, since it actually takes an ability to make a decision, only people with an IQ higher than the average carnivorous plant can actually do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What about the 2 police he shot? Just fish in a barrel?

What about the weapons he took from them? Would an assault weapons ban have prevented him from killing the cops and stealing their weapons?

I guess good guys with guns made the situation worse.

They were security, not good guys.