Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[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?

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?

I don't have to make things up. You support gun free zones enforced by the government, and want to disarm civilians because they scare you

 

[RandallFlagg]

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?

not many companies have anything in their policies even mentioning guns. if you have a carry permit and your company does not specifically say guns are not allowed on their property as erms of employment, no issue

Absolutely true. However, in this time of CCW, MOST companies have strict policies against weapons at work. When CCW became the law in Kansas, for example, the law stated that if a business owner didn't want "John Q Public" carrying in his establishment, he was required to post a sign (in full public view) stating "No Guns Allowed". If a CCW permit was caught carrying within that business - he lost his CCW.

Never made much sense to me. You think the bad guys give a damn about a sign?? The only thing that it accomplishes is that everyone in that business is at the mercy of the criminal who is carrying a gun in his waistband because the honest, law-abiding citizen has left his weapon locked in his trunk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Define major.

 

[Brain357]

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.

You've said it and seem to be sayin it again. You seem very confused.

 

[Brain357]

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?

I don't have to make things up. You support gun free zones enforced by the government, and want to disarm civilians because they scare you

I haven't said any of that. Lying is just pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You've said it and seem to be sayin it again. You seem very confused.

No, I am saying it takes the ability to think, which is why cops routinely shoot unarmed civilians, they don't think.

 

[martybegan]

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

not many companies have anything in their policies even mentioning guns. if you have a carry permit and your company does not specifically say guns are not allowed on their property as erms of employment, no issue

Absolutely true. However, in this time of CCW, MOST companies have strict policies against weapons at work. When CCW became the law in Kansas, for example, the law stated that if a business owner didn't want "John Q Public" carrying in his establishment, he was required to post a sign (in full public view) stating "No Guns Allowed". If a CCW permit was caught carrying within that business - he lost his CCW.

Never made much sense to me. You think the bad guys give a damn about a sign?? The only thing that it accomplishes is that everyone in that business is at the mercy of the criminal who is carrying a gun in his waistband because the honest, law-abiding citizen has left his weapon locked in his trunk.

its mostly for insurance purposes.

I have a solution to the issue. If a business bans someone with a CCW from carrying on thier premises, said business becomes responsible for the safety of that person. If they fail to provide said safety, then the CCW (or thier surviving relatives) has the ability to sue the living shit out of that business because they removed the ability of the CCW to defend themselves without providing protection.

 

[RandallFlagg]

not many companies have anything in their policies even mentioning guns. if you have a carry permit and your company does not specifically say guns are not allowed on their property as erms of employment, no issue

Absolutely true. However, in this time of CCW, MOST companies have strict policies against weapons at work. When CCW became the law in Kansas, for example, the law stated that if a business owner didn't want "John Q Public" carrying in his establishment, he was required to post a sign (in full public view) stating "No Guns Allowed". If a CCW permit was caught carrying within that business - he lost his CCW.

Never made much sense to me. You think the bad guys give a damn about a sign?? The only thing that it accomplishes is that everyone in that business is at the mercy of the criminal who is carrying a gun in his waistband because the honest, law-abiding citizen has left his weapon locked in his trunk.

its mostly for insurance purposes.

I have a solution to the issue. If a business bans someone with a CCW from carrying on thier premises, said business becomes responsible for the safety of that person. If they fail to provide said safety, then the CCW (or thier surviving relatives) has the ability to sue the living shit out of that business because they removed the ability of the CCW to defend themselves without providing protection.

Excellent point. I haven't lived in Kansas for years, but I'd be damned curious to know if some enterprising young attorney hasn't already thought about that possible legal challenge.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Fuck off you HYPERPARTISAN twat.
2 people is not a mass shooting.

You retarded pile of liberal shit.

Gun free zones are the facts.

You are a liberal shit stain.
Go away.
You make decent human beings sick.
Vile, savage scum!!

Are you kidding me? When you talk to other people like that, YOU are the one who makes decent human beings sick.

You sound like you're about to go over the edge.

Shut your foul mouth scumbag.
If you don't like it, don't dish it.
Vile savage.

LOL. So pathetic.

 

[koshergrl]

You are pathetic, and nauseating, koos. I don't see any reason to be tolerant of your disgusting views.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

not many companies have anything in their policies even mentioning guns. if you have a carry permit and your company does not specifically say guns are not allowed on their property as erms of employment, no issue

Absolutely true. However, in this time of CCW, MOST companies have strict policies against weapons at work. When CCW became the law in Kansas, for example, the law stated that if a business owner didn't want "John Q Public" carrying in his establishment, he was required to post a sign (in full public view) stating "No Guns Allowed". If a CCW permit was caught carrying within that business - he lost his CCW.

Never made much sense to me. You think the bad guys give a damn about a sign?? The only thing that it accomplishes is that everyone in that business is at the mercy of the criminal who is carrying a gun in his waistband because the honest, law-abiding citizen has left his weapon locked in his trunk.

In Texas there are two different signs that restrict a concealed handgun license holder from carrying into a place of business. They are a 30.06 sign, and a 51% sign.

A 30.06 sign is a sign that a business owner can post to restrict a CHL holder from entering the business with a concealed handgun. The sign must contain the exact words required by Section 30.06 in both English and Spanish, be placed in an area visible to the public, and have 1" lettering or it will not be considered a legally-binding 30.06 sign. "Gunbuster" signs, or signs with a red slash through a gun, are not considered valid 30.06 postings.

A 51% sign is a sign that a business is required by law to post if 51% of their revenue is obtained through on-premises drinking, such as at a bar. Unfortunately this also has the consequence of not allowing CHL holders to enter the premises where the drinking is taking place while carrying their handgun.

Additional places are not required to post a sign to forbid CHL holders from entering the premises with their handgun as Texas law already forbids it, such as court houses and educational institutions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why aren't any of the big news agencies trumpeting the fact that the shooter did not have an AR-15, or thousands of rounds of ammo?

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"
However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.
The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

Navy Yard shooting: AR-15, back in the news -- briefly - CNN.com

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

So this guy converted to Buddhism, eh? I know some people who were born and raised as Buddhists and they are very good people. I also know some people who converted to Buddhism as adults and they are all just a little nuts. Maybe not go out and shoot up a bunch of people nuts, but just a little nutty, nonetheless. Usually people with too much money and time on their hands, and they are attracted to exotic people and exotic religions and exotic causes like "Free Tibet." It's like a hobby for them. Makes them feel worthwhile.

To me it just seems like they're searching, and because they're searching they feel superior to people who have already found what they're looking for...internal peace.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Spoonman]

Why aren't any of the big news agencies trumpeting the fact that the shooter did not have an AR-15, or thousands of rounds of ammo?

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"
However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.
The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

Navy Yard shooting: AR-15, back in the news -- briefly - CNN.com

when will this useless bitch from california learn to STFU? she spews more information than anyone. she is a totally agenda driven waste of time. how can californians continue to supprt this mess?

 

[Brain357]

Why aren't any of the big news agencies trumpeting the fact that the shooter did not have an AR-15, or thousands of rounds of ammo?

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"
However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.
The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

Navy Yard shooting: AR-15, back in the news -- briefly - CNN.com

I've not yet heard what gun did most of the shooting. No description of shotgun or pistols.

 

[Politico]

I haven't read the last ten pages of drivel. But I imagiine the Leftytoons are still on a gun rant. And that we still don't know much?

 

[koshergrl]

We know it wasn't an AR15,and we know he wasn't a naval officer.

 

[Politico]

Neither points were revelevant from minute one. So nothing then.

 

[Geaux4it]

Your comparing the US to 2 very small countries. Finland is extremely densely populated and Switzerland is a very rich country(gdp per capita 79k, US 50k). Sorry but countries like the UK(1.2) and Germany(.8) are much fairer comparisons.

I am comparing the USA to rest of the world...Why are density and wealth not a factor? And why is the rest of the worlds rate , 6.9 per 100,00 and the USA is 4.8? This, while the USA owns 50% of all guns in the world?

-Geaux

Comparing to the world includes countries that are very economically and politically unstable. .

So you are saying it's not the gun, but the culture. I agree. And to your point earlier about Switzerland being a rich country, once again, it's the culture, not the gun.

I agree we need real consequence for crime and need to lock them up for a very long time. It's clear the issue in the USA is it's failed cultural diversity experiment that causes the homicide rate, not the gun.

Bottom line is the homicide rate in the USA is lower than other countries that have more strict gun laws while owning fewer guns per capita.

We need to fix our culture, not deny law abiding gun owners their rights

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

I haven't read the last ten pages of drivel. But I imagiine the Leftytoons are still on a gun rant. And that we still don't know much?

Indeed. And they have not looked at what happened in Colorado last week either. Those 2 asshats were recalled and sent out on a rail. Prelude of things to come in 2014.

The American people will not stand for infringement of our Bill of Rights

-Geaux