NAVSEA Shooter - DC

[MomentsofSanity]

Failing to see how the NRA is wrong here. We know the shooter legally bought the shotgun from a dealer. We know he passed NICS.

So we have two issues: a) should he have passed NICS and b) why was he able to run rampant?

A) is an issue with states reporting to NICS and doctors failing to report. Not sure how you fix short of criminalizing failure to report on the part of the doctors or cutting federal funding on the part of the states.

B) is the ironic one. This guy was able to run rampant on a military installation because the soldiers were disarmed.

This is completely in Obama's court as commander in chief. Clinton disarmed them via executive order. Obama can rearm them via the same action.

Well, he is saying mental illness should be flagged to prevent gun purchasing when running checks while also saying we should make sure there's ways to buy guns where a check never happens.

 

[TerryMathews]

Well, he is saying mental illness should be flagged to prevent gun purchasing when running checks while also saying we should make sure there's ways to buy guns where a check never happens.

As far as I know, the NRA has never came out against (and has in fact supported) expanding NICS so that everyone can access it.

The NRA has an issue with requiring FFL transfers - and rightly so as that FFL transfer becomes a de facto tax which the BATF would then have jurisdiction to increase at will without Congressional approval.

 

[spidey07]

Failing to see how the NRA is wrong here. We know the shooter legally bought the shotgun from a dealer. We know he passed NICS.

So we have two issues: a) should he have passed NICS and b) why was he able to run rampant?

A) is an issue with states reporting to NICS and doctors failing to report. Not sure how you fix short of criminalizing failure to report on the part of the doctors or cutting federal funding on the part of the states.

B) is the ironic one. This guy was able to run rampant on a military installation because the soldiers were disarmed.

This is completely in Obama's court as commander in chief. Clinton disarmed them via executive order. Obama can rearm them via the same action.

Correct. He did not learn from Fort Hood, so this shooting is clearly on his shoulders and his fault. Blame goes clearly on Obama.

 

[cyclohexane]

The only way to fix it is to repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

[TerryMathews]

The only way to fix it is to repeal the 2nd amendment.

What does the 2nd have to do with this situation?

 

[cyclohexane]

What does the 2nd have to do with this situation?

Fewer guns, fewer mass-shootings.

 

[spidey07]

Shooter was black.

Shooter had only shotgun.

Repeat.

Shooter was black. Shooter used shot gun.

Over. Come on back?

 

[palehorse]

Fewer guns, fewer mass-shootings.

You do realize that "mass shootings" are extremely rare, right?

So once you burn our Bill of Rights, all of the guns in existence will just magically disappear? Or, are you suggesting that the government criminalize ownership and then go door-to-door collecting the guns and/or arresting everyone who owns one? Perhaps even full-on SWAT raids?

Yeah, good luck with that.

I personally thought it was f'n disgusting that the President turned the Navy Yard Memorial Service into a political anti-gun speech.

 

[TerryMathews]

What does the 2nd have to do with this situation?

Two of the three guns he used I wouldn't say the second amendment applied to as he pilfered them from dead soldiers/civilian security (?). Either way, they weren't privately owned guns in the same vein that we think of the second. Those were "duty" weapons.

Is there any reason to think he couldn't have ambushed the first guard with something other than the shotgun he was carrying?

Massaging this incident to make it fit into the same box that Aurora and Sandy Hook fit into simply isn't going to work. It's too different, the only link between them is we have yet another shooter who sought psychological help and the system failed him.

The military world needs to, at a minimum, mirror the civilian world and allow interested individuals to carry their duty weapon on post. Maybe by applying to their CO or installation commander.

Of course, such a directive would have to originate from the top and I simply don't see that happening. Too great a risk of proving that more guns does in fact equal less gun violence.