Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[R.C. Christian]

I have a load of 30 round magazines and a 100 round drum. I'm not a mass murderer nor will I ever be you senseless moron.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a load of 30 round magazines and a 100 round drum. I'm not a mass murderer nor will I ever be you senseless moron.

I would toss the 100 round it is useless. I have an M1 Carbine and own 4 30 round mags for it. Also 4 15 round mags a 10 round and 2 five round mags. You cant even see the 5 rounder when inserted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. You can call it what you want, but it's trying to get more guns out there. I'm lying about nothing. Are you keeping background checks? Why do you want people to have whatever guns they want? Studies show you only need 2-3 shots for defense and the type of gun really doesn't matter. The only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. You don't want require concealed carry permits. Will that lead to more accidents due to no training? In 2010 there were 600 unintentional injuries with firearms.

Studies show you only need 2 or 3 shots? Real life has show people take 15 rounds from police and walk to the ambulance after the gun fight. Are cops really bad shots, or are the studies based on a desire to ban guns?

Just an FYI, when a pistol holds 17 rounds that does not make a 15 round magazine high capacity.

So the security guards couldn't stop them but your certain that a CC would? There was at least one armed person at the Tucson shooting, but he picked out the wrong person. The shooter was stopped when he tried to reload. Wouldn't lower capacity magazines be more of a help?

The guards? The FBI says he took a single gun from the victims, why do you keep saying guards?

I'm more talking about company employees. Companies don't want armed employees. I doubt you can name a large company that allows employees to carry guns. I don't think you'd ever get them to be ok with it.

Define large company, because I am pretty sure that, however you define it, I can find a company that is bigger that allows people to carry weapons.

 

[Brain357]

1. You can call it what you want, but it's trying to get more guns out there. I'm lying about nothing. Are you keeping background checks? Why do you want people to have whatever guns they want? Studies show you only need 2-3 shots for defense and the type of gun really doesn't matter. The only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. You don't want require concealed carry permits. Will that lead to more accidents due to no training? In 2010 there were 600 unintentional injuries with firearms.

Studies show you only need 2 or 3 shots? Real life has show people take 15 rounds from police and walk to the ambulance after the gun fight. Are cops really bad shots, or are the studies based on a desire to ban guns?

Just an FYI, when a pistol holds 17 rounds that does not make a 15 round magazine high capacity.

So the security guards couldn't stop them but your certain that a CC would? There was at least one armed person at the Tucson shooting, but he picked out the wrong person. The shooter was stopped when he tried to reload. Wouldn't lower capacity magazines be more of a help?

The guards? The FBI says he took a single gun from the victims, why do you keep saying guards?

I'm more talking about company employees. Companies don't want armed employees. I doubt you can name a large company that allows employees to carry guns. I don't think you'd ever get them to be ok with it.

Define large company, because I am pretty sure that, however you define it, I can find a company that is bigger that allows people to carry weapons.

Please share a link to where someone was shot 15 times and walked to the hospital. They are statistics gun people throw around. Isn't this a pro gun site?
Self-Defense Journal

I heard 2 cops were shot. Has that changed like much of the story?

How about some national company with thousands of employees?

 

[westwall]

1. The more guns option. Don't see this making much of a difference. Anyone who wants a gun already has 10.

There you go lying again. Nothing in my #1 point calls for more guns, only the removal of impediments that prevent people from defending themselves. Please, stop lying. It doesn't help your case.



And how'd that gun free zone thing work out? About the same as at the Colorado theater, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and all the other places where maniacs choose to murder innocents?

What you obtusely choose to overlook is that my first suggestion would have also meant that the people could have had the means to defend themselves rather than cowering in the corner waiting for a good guy with a gun to arrive and save their ass.



If business owners are forced to serve everyone and anyone that walks through their doors, even if that means violating the tenants of their religion, then you sure as shit can't make a case that a person should be refused service based on a right codified in the Bill of Rights.

You want to return to the days of strict private property rights? Then fine, I'm all for allowing businesses to define who and what can be brought on to their property. But you can't have it both ways.



Stop being obtuse. I CLEARLY stated that we should not imprison people for consensual activity between adults, which would free up the vast majority of jail space and resources. Further, we spend ungodly amounts of money on violent recidivist criminals, far more than if we would have locked them up long term instead of releasing them time and time again only to be recaptured, retried, re-sentenced and reincarnated. Stop the cycle and we'd save significant resources...and lives.



You seem to have no problem with the cost of implementing vast bureaucracies to restrict second amendment rights. Now you have a fiscal issue? Please. The money could be easily found with common sense prioritization.

4. Sounds ok at first. Will non crazies find themselves locked up for political reasons? Seems ripe for abuse. Also infringes on a much more important right.

Like I said, that's not an easy one, but clearly, we need to reevaluate when a person's mental illness makes him a danger to others and worthy of detainment. You have no problem stamping all over second amendment rights, but other rights are sacrosanct? How about a little consistency?

1. You can call it what you want, but it's trying to get more guns out there. I'm lying about nothing. Are you keeping background checks? Why do you want people to have whatever guns they want? Studies show you only need 2-3 shots for defense and the type of gun really doesn't matter. The only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. You don't want require concealed carry permits. Will that lead to more accidents due to no training? In 2010 there were 600 unintentional injuries with firearms.

So the security guards couldn't stop them but your certain that a CC would? There was at least one armed person at the Tucson shooting, but he picked out the wrong person. The shooter was stopped when he tried to reload. Wouldn't lower capacity magazines be more of a help?

I'm more talking about company employees. Companies don't want armed employees. I doubt you can name a large company that allows employees to carry guns. I don't think you'd ever get them to be ok with it.

So how many people have concealed carry permits?
Texas : 1 per about every 44 people.
New York: 1 per 210 people.
Minnesota: 1 per 35 people.
California: 1 per 1000 people.

So if you work in a smaller office of say 30 people your plan is unlikely to have a CC owner. In CA it would have almost no effect. MN might help more than other places. What are your thoughts on those numbers? Would the gun carries try to stop the shooter or use it to help get themselves out of there? I'm quickly losing faith in the heroism of people.

2. Ok so let out the no victim criminals and keep more of the violent ones in for longer. I'm not a fan of locking people up for victimless crime. Can't hurt. But again we have a lot of people in jail already for violent crimes.

3. I looked around and many of the countries with lower homicide rates were at 300 police per capita while we are like 250. I agree with your proposal to add more.

4. I think the right to not be in jail is the most important one we have. You really have no freedom if your in jail. So yes I put that one up pretty high. My own plan is to take their guns and make it so they can't buy guns. Putting in jail is more effective I guess, but is very difficult and scary if abused. I don't disagree with it but would need to be discussed in great detail.

One thing you've not touched on that I think is important and you might agree with. I think it's important to shut down the borders. We need to deport any criminal type illegals and close down the border. Your thoughts?

There are 300 million firearms out there and they kill around 30,000 per year (actually less but I'm giving you the best possible numbers), of which 80% is gang related. 800,000 doctors kill 100,000 people per year due to medical malpractice, misdiagnosis, bad prescriptions etc.

More people die in their bathtubs than were killed by rifles last year. Death during sex accounts for .6% of all sudden deaths. You want to make the world safer? outlaw sex, it kills way more than accidental gun deaths.

The point being you can't make the world safe. You can try as hard as you might, but people die.

 

[williepete]

I would toss the 100 round it is useless.

Listen to the Gunny!

Sell it to a sucker while prices are still high.

 

[theliq]

Washington Navy Yard shooting: Active shooter sought in Southeast D.C. | WJLA.com

Police search for active shooter on grounds of Washington Navy Yard in Southeast D.C. - The Washington Post

Once again, a nut case with a gun has shot people and is now at large. As with Boston, people are being advised to "shelter in place" and schools are on shut down.

Bring on the nutters with their lame ass excuses.

How about changing the Gun Laws,this type of thing has become too frequent....Too many Nutters.....Americans love their Guns but are they responsible enough to be allowed them.

Some obviously NOT......I read that this latest individual had been discharging his firearm into his neighbours yard a few days prior to this latest murders!!!!!!!steve

 

[theliq]

There you go lying again. Nothing in my #1 point calls for more guns, only the removal of impediments that prevent people from defending themselves. Please, stop lying. It doesn't help your case.



And how'd that gun free zone thing work out? About the same as at the Colorado theater, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and all the other places where maniacs choose to murder innocents?

What you obtusely choose to overlook is that my first suggestion would have also meant that the people could have had the means to defend themselves rather than cowering in the corner waiting for a good guy with a gun to arrive and save their ass.



If business owners are forced to serve everyone and anyone that walks through their doors, even if that means violating the tenants of their religion, then you sure as shit can't make a case that a person should be refused service based on a right codified in the Bill of Rights.

You want to return to the days of strict private property rights? Then fine, I'm all for allowing businesses to define who and what can be brought on to their property. But you can't have it both ways.



Stop being obtuse. I CLEARLY stated that we should not imprison people for consensual activity between adults, which would free up the vast majority of jail space and resources. Further, we spend ungodly amounts of money on violent recidivist criminals, far more than if we would have locked them up long term instead of releasing them time and time again only to be recaptured, retried, re-sentenced and reincarnated. Stop the cycle and we'd save significant resources...and lives.



You seem to have no problem with the cost of implementing vast bureaucracies to restrict second amendment rights. Now you have a fiscal issue? Please. The money could be easily found with common sense prioritization.



Like I said, that's not an easy one, but clearly, we need to reevaluate when a person's mental illness makes him a danger to others and worthy of detainment. You have no problem stamping all over second amendment rights, but other rights are sacrosanct? How about a little consistency?

1. You can call it what you want, but it's trying to get more guns out there. I'm lying about nothing. Are you keeping background checks? Why do you want people to have whatever guns they want? Studies show you only need 2-3 shots for defense and the type of gun really doesn't matter. The only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. You don't want require concealed carry permits. Will that lead to more accidents due to no training? In 2010 there were 600 unintentional injuries with firearms.

So the security guards couldn't stop them but your certain that a CC would? There was at least one armed person at the Tucson shooting, but he picked out the wrong person. The shooter was stopped when he tried to reload. Wouldn't lower capacity magazines be more of a help?

I'm more talking about company employees. Companies don't want armed employees. I doubt you can name a large company that allows employees to carry guns. I don't think you'd ever get them to be ok with it.

So how many people have concealed carry permits?
Texas : 1 per about every 44 people.
New York: 1 per 210 people.
Minnesota: 1 per 35 people.
California: 1 per 1000 people.

So if you work in a smaller office of say 30 people your plan is unlikely to have a CC owner. In CA it would have almost no effect. MN might help more than other places. What are your thoughts on those numbers? Would the gun carries try to stop the shooter or use it to help get themselves out of there? I'm quickly losing faith in the heroism of people.

2. Ok so let out the no victim criminals and keep more of the violent ones in for longer. I'm not a fan of locking people up for victimless crime. Can't hurt. But again we have a lot of people in jail already for violent crimes.

3. I looked around and many of the countries with lower homicide rates were at 300 police per capita while we are like 250. I agree with your proposal to add more.

4. I think the right to not be in jail is the most important one we have. You really have no freedom if your in jail. So yes I put that one up pretty high. My own plan is to take their guns and make it so they can't buy guns. Putting in jail is more effective I guess, but is very difficult and scary if abused. I don't disagree with it but would need to be discussed in great detail.

One thing you've not touched on that I think is important and you might agree with. I think it's important to shut down the borders. We need to deport any criminal type illegals and close down the border. Your thoughts?

There are 300 million firearms out there and they kill around 30,000 per year (actually less but I'm giving you the best possible numbers), of which 80% is gang related. 800,000 doctors kill 100,000 people per year due to medical malpractice, misdiagnosis, bad prescriptions etc.

More people die in their bathtubs than were killed by rifles last year. Death during sex accounts for .6% of all sudden deaths. You want to make the world safer? outlaw sex, it kills way more than accidental gun deaths.

The point being you can't make the world safe. You can try as hard as you might, but people die.

Strange and Crazy Comparison

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. You can call it what you want, but it's trying to get more guns out there. I'm lying about nothing. Are you keeping background checks? Why do you want people to have whatever guns they want? Studies show you only need 2-3 shots for defense and the type of gun really doesn't matter. The only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. You don't want require concealed carry permits. Will that lead to more accidents due to no training? In 2010 there were 600 unintentional injuries with firearms.

Studies show you only need 2 or 3 shots? Real life has show people take 15 rounds from police and walk to the ambulance after the gun fight. Are cops really bad shots, or are the studies based on a desire to ban guns?

Just an FYI, when a pistol holds 17 rounds that does not make a 15 round magazine high capacity.



The guards? The FBI says he took a single gun from the victims, why do you keep saying guards?

I'm more talking about company employees. Companies don't want armed employees. I doubt you can name a large company that allows employees to carry guns. I don't think you'd ever get them to be ok with it.

Define large company, because I am pretty sure that, however you define it, I can find a company that is bigger that allows people to carry weapons.

Please share a link to where someone was shot 15 times and walked to the hospital. They are statistics gun people throw around. Isn't this a pro gun site?
Self-Defense Journal

I heard 2 cops were shot. Has that changed like much of the story?

How about some national company with thousands of employees?

I said ambulance, not hospital.

But this guy was shot 5 times and walked to the hospital, which blows your 3 shots fake study out of the water.

Victim Shot Multiple Times Walks To Hospital - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29

Like I said, the FBI says he had access to a pistol from a guard. There was an MPD officer that was also shot, and reports say that they didn't recover his weapon from him at the hospital, but that doesn't mean anyone took it.

 

[Politico]

Thanks to you people I am going to be blitzed with ridiculous banner ads for days. And the voices in my head are screaming so loud I can't think.

 

[Brain357]

Studies show you only need 2 or 3 shots? Real life has show people take 15 rounds from police and walk to the ambulance after the gun fight. Are cops really bad shots, or are the studies based on a desire to ban guns?

Just an FYI, when a pistol holds 17 rounds that does not make a 15 round magazine high capacity.



The guards? The FBI says he took a single gun from the victims, why do you keep saying guards?



Define large company, because I am pretty sure that, however you define it, I can find a company that is bigger that allows people to carry weapons.

Please share a link to where someone was shot 15 times and walked to the hospital. They are statistics gun people throw around. Isn't this a pro gun site?
Self-Defense Journal

I heard 2 cops were shot. Has that changed like much of the story?

How about some national company with thousands of employees?

I said ambulance, not hospital.

But this guy was shot 5 times and walked to the hospital, which blows your 3 shots fake study out of the water.

Victim Shot Multiple Times Walks To Hospital - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29

Like I said, the FBI says he had access to a pistol from a guard. There was an MPD officer that was also shot, and reports say that they didn't recover his weapon from him at the hospital, but that doesn't mean anyone took it.

He was shot in the lower extremities. If you shoot for the lower extremities in defense it's your own fault if he's not stopped. Try again.

Gunners use fake studies?

You seem to be saying there were 2 officers which agrees with me.

 

[Geaux4it]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Again your comparing us to 3rd world countries. You must think very little of this country. Compare us to to developed countries and we're 4X more likely. You don't even think we belong in the company of developed countries?

 

[Geaux4it]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Again your comparing us to 3rd world countries. You must think very little of this country. Compare us to to developed countries and we're 4X more likely. You don't even think we belong in the company of developed countries?

We are part of the world for which all guns are part of. This is why there are only 300 million guns outside our borders, and we have the rest. And yet, you are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the USA.

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Yes, you are less likely to die of crime in America than in a third world country having a civil war.

Like that's something to be proud of.

However, you are MUCH MORE likely to die of crime in the US than any other industrialized, advanced democracy, which is what we supposedly are.

The only thing that has failed is our libertarian expirment that ignores our obligations to each other as a society.

If we have 270 million guns, and 2 million people in prison, and we STILL have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, then we are just plain doing it wrong.

 

[theliq]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Again your comparing us to 3rd world countries. You must think very little of this country. Compare us to to developed countries and we're 4X more likely. You don't even think we belong in the company of developed countries?

We are part of the world for which all guns are part of. This is why there are only 300 million guns outside our borders, and we have the rest. And yet, you are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the USA.

-Geaux

Geaux......your comments are ridiculous......Australia and the UK and others ban guns for the general population,and we have minimal gun killings.

I think your mind is running without a rudder...

 

[JoeB131]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Again your comparing us to 3rd world countries. You must think very little of this country. Compare us to to developed countries and we're 4X more likely. You don't even think we belong in the company of developed countries?

We are part of the world for which all guns are part of. This is why there are only 300 million guns outside our borders, and we have the rest. And yet, you are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the USA.

-Geaux

Again, comparing us to third world countries is disingenous.

Other advanced industrialized democracies BAN guns, and they have very low murder rates.

Poor third world countries allow guns (or can't enforce their own laws) and have high murder rates.

So we have a goal we should want to move towards, and a goal we want to avoid.

Unless you are a gun whack, and just think the problem is that we don't have enough people running around shooting other people.

 

[Geaux4it]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Yes, you are less likely to die of crime in America than in a third world country having a civil war.

Like that's something to be proud of.

However, you are MUCH MORE likely to die of crime in the US than any other industrialized, advanced democracy, which is what we supposedly are.

The only thing that has failed is our libertarian expirment that ignores our obligations to each other as a society.

If we have 270 million guns, and 2 million people in prison, and we STILL have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, then we are just plain doing it wrong.

You are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the borders of the USA, yet we own 50% of all guns in the world

It's not the gun.

We need more prisons, US wide death penalty and other real consequences for crime

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Again your comparing us to 3rd world countries. You must think very little of this country. Compare us to to developed countries and we're 4X more likely. You don't even think we belong in the company of developed countries?

We are part of the world for which all guns are part of. This is why there are only 300 million guns outside our borders, and we have the rest. And yet, you are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the USA.

-Geaux

So the right considers us a 3rd world country. That explains a lot. Most their policies are 3rd world. Just be aware once we truly get there we will not have the huge army anymore.

 

[theliq]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Yes, you are less likely to die of crime in America than in a third world country having a civil war.

Like that's something to be proud of.

However, you are MUCH MORE likely to die of crime in the US than any other industrialized, advanced democracy, which is what we supposedly are.

The only thing that has failed is our libertarian expirment that ignores our obligations to each other as a society.

If we have 270 million guns, and 2 million people in prison, and we STILL have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, then we are just plain doing it wrong.

You are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the borders of the USA, yet we own 50% of all guns in the world

It's not the gun.

We need more prisons, US wide death penalty and other real consequences for crime

-Geaux

You are a violent society,that have a gun culture........you as a nation are totally irresponsible.......how odd you are wanting more prisons,when mentally you are imprisoned in your own minds because of the gun culture.

Wake Up