DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:10 am**

Seems there is a shooter on the loose at the naval yards. First let us say a prayer for those hurt and the relatives of the dead. I and others will have to wonder what the motives of the shooter(s) may be. Stay tuned.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:39 am**

I read this stuff daily on CNN. Sad thing it keeps happening. When will enough be enough before the Gov't finally does something to curb gun possession?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:32 am**

CDN_Merlin wrote:I read this stuff daily on CNN. Sad thing it keeps happening. When will enough be enough before the Gov't finally does something to curb gun possession?

I think they have done to much already.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:37 am**

Guys, let's wait on some more facts before jumping on this as political/social fodder.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:09 pm**

Sounds like a disgruntled worker thing to me...oh well.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:24 pm**

Latest release from police chief is that there may be 2 more shooters still on the loose. If so it will be more than just a disgruntled employee. I'm waiting for someone to say they heard one of the shooter yell "Allahu Akbar" and the govt. response that it was just work place violence. And Merlin, the govt has done more than enough. But let us find out more of the shooters reasons before we walk down any dark alleyways.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:33 pm**

Sounds like a disgruntled worker(s) thing to me. Age and description of the shooters doesn't lend itself to much else.

Who cares? 12 dead via mass shooting? That's just another day in America.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:27 pm**

I've never heard of group disgruntled employee shooters.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:51 pm**

I bet you also had not heard of using hijacking planes and flying them into buildings...or shooting up a kindergarten class...there's a first time for everything regardless of your self-professed brilliant mind not knowing about it.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:59 pm**

Foil wrote:Guys, let's wait on some more facts before jumping on this as political/social fodder.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:21 pm**

Foil wrote:
Foil wrote:Guys, let's wait on some more facts before jumping on this as political/social fodder.

Speculation is a deeply help part of human discourse.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:29 pm**

Hey Foil, why don't you just tell the two idiots that immediately make this into something political huh? It's not like I actually expect you to do that but cut everyone else that isn't doing that some slack.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:45 pm**

I know someone who is doing his tour of duty in the navy as I speak... he has serious problems with the way national security and the military are handled and it's his idea to somehow subvert the buraeucracy upon gaining the necessary access.

... not that that has any relation to this, I just heard navy and thought of him.

I'm going to wait for more info before even assuming the act wasn't justified.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:11 pm**

DoTheGeek wrote:I'm going to wait for more info before even assuming the act wasn't justified.

Whoa, hold on a sec. Of what little we do know, one thing is that the shooter(s) were firing randomly at some people.

Is there some scenario where you think shooting at random people (including civilians) is "justified"?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:15 pm**

Didn't the National Guard at Kent State randomly shoot civilians and it was found to be "justified" because the troops "thought" someone was firing at them?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:23 pm**

Do not feed the trolls.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:32 pm**

Foil wrote:
DoTheGeek wrote:I'm going to wait for more info before even assuming the act wasn't justified.
Whoa, hold on a sec. Of what little we do know, one thing is that the shooter(s) were firing randomly at some people.

Is there some scenario where you think shooting at random people (including civilians) is "justified"?

Is it confirmed that the targets were random?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:48 pm**

DoTheGeek wrote:Is it confirmed that the targets were random?

When a shooter fires down a hallway at anyone who appears in his sight (as described by at least one witness), yes.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:02 pm**

DoTheGeek wrote: I'm going to wait for more info before even assuming the act wasn't justified.

Alright. Say the people he shot were somehow 'guilty' in the mind of the shooter. Where is it written in the law that you can simply kill people on your own when it isn't in immediate self defense of your own life? What about simple morality?

What your statement shows is how twisted your thinking is...and how twisted you probably are.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:06 pm**

CobGobbler wrote:I bet you also had not heard of using hijacking planes and flying them into buildings...or shooting up a kindergarten class...there's a first time for everything regardless of your self-professed brilliant mind not knowing about it.

I don't recall telling anyone how brilliant I am. Oh well, if you arent completely full of crap on your assertion, I guess it proves that even the brightest of us can forget something once in a while.

Anyway, while we avoid speculation, can you guess why your other two supposed analogous examples are not nearly as surprising in their first occurrence as a group of disgruntled employees gone workplace shooter is?

The difference between them is so great it really renders the point you think you made nonexistent.
Here's a clue. It isn't anything amazing or hard to figure out that you overlooked. It is simple, logical and obvious. Almost anyone would have thought about it before making that mistake...

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:10 pm**

Foil wrote:
DoTheGeek wrote:Is it confirmed that the targets were random?
When a shooter fires down a hallway at anyone who appears in his sight (as described by at least one witness), yes.

One witness does not amount to confirmation.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:15 pm**

CobGobbler wrote:I bet you also had not heard of using hijacking planes and flying them into buildings...or shooting up a kindergarten class...there's a first time for everything regardless of your self-professed brilliant mind not knowing about it.

You said "sounds like". But it can't sound like something that hasn't happened before, genius, now can it?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:41 pm**

Sure it can ST, use that void between your ears to figure it out. Disgruntled worker and disgruntled workers are close enough to be under the same motive umbrella. Notice that we don't have different definitions for someone robbing a bank by themselves and robbing a bank with a group of people. I know that you're going to try and switch what I've said all around so you can feel like you're winning the debate, but you're not even close.

I'm sure this thread will no doubt turn into another gun debate pissing contest, have fun.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:27 pm**

CobGobbler wrote:Sure it can ST, use that void between your ears to figure it out. Disgruntled worker and disgruntled workers are close enough to be under the same motive umbrella. Notice that we don't have different definitions for someone robbing a bank by themselves and robbing a bank with a group of people. I know that you're going to try and switch what I've said all around so you can feel like you're winning the debate, but you're not even close.

I'm sure this thread will no doubt turn into another gun debate pissing contest, have fun.

I ALWAYS win my debates, Cob--it's just that sometimes it's more of a moral victory.

Also I would suggest in the future that you not post when you're on your period.

I guess you didn't know that when disgruntled people get into groups they do it to "share", not to shoot people.

Third time's a charm, let's see if this paragraph can be serious... I suppose this could be considered a fair justification for someone wondering if this group could be involved in an activity which heretofore has been undertaken by people in isolation, but I would think you would first have to ask yourself, "why is it usually just one, and how might we justifiably conclude that it is now a team sport?". On the other hand it could end up being a team of crazed, Olympic Luge runners that couldn't stand the strain of the summer season and all snapped in temperature-dictated unison! Wouldn't we all look like a bunch of fools then! And Cob would no longer be a prick wasting his time on a bulletin board full of people that he hates, but he would be gloriously VINDICATED as the cranially single-celled look on in wonder! [/serious]

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:47 pm**

Columbine was a team sport. (1999)

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:00 pm**

Vision, the Columbine perpetrators weren't old enough to be in an Olympic Luge team. Please try not to derail...

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:38 pm**

vindicated is not the word I'm looking for. In fact, I was not looking for anything at all. I merely responded to the resident cockbag known as Will and his wondrous addition to the conversation. I could care less about the events of today and who is ultimately "right" about why it happened. Aside from it giving the news channels something else to report on today, why is this even in the news? Twelve people died, oh well, sorry, that's the price this society has to pay for what we want. Twelve here, twenty there, none of it will last beyond a few news conferences, token congressional hearings, and then it will just fade away and we can quickly devote our attention to whatever Miley Cyrus is doing at the moment.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:25 pm**

CobGobbler wrote:vindicated is not the word I'm looking for. In fact, I was not looking for anything at all. I merely responded to the resident cockbag known as Will and his wondrous addition to the conversation. I could care less about the events of today and who is ultimately "right" about why it happened. Aside from it giving the news channels something else to report on today, why is this even in the news? Twelve people died, oh well, sorry, that's the price this society has to pay for what we want. Twelve here, twenty there, none of it will last beyond a few news conferences, token congressional hearings, and then it will just fade away and we can quickly devote our attention to whatever Miley Cyrus is doing at the moment.

Clearly it is in the news so you can tell us how you don't care about it at all.

The same way you always come here to tell us you don't care one bit about things you raced here to declare you 'do not care about at all'.

I guess we are lucky you care enough about us to always make time to come and fill us in about these things you don't care about because obviously it must be tiresome for you to take time out from your life and bring yourself here so often to comment on these things you don't care about at all. So thanks!

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:39 am**

CobGobbler wrote:I merely responded to the resident cockbag known as Will and his wondrous addition to the conversation.

Thats almost comical considering who posted it

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:27 am**

CobGobbler wrote:Aside from it giving the news channels something else to report on today, why is this even in the news?

Political reasons, I'm sure.

CobGobbler wrote:Twelve people died, oh well, sorry, that's the price this society has to pay for what we want. Twelve here, twenty there, ...

"What we want"--our right to bear arms and to self-defense--does not exist at anyone's pleasure, and will not be dismissed for anyone's displeasure. Put the violin away, and the fake horsehair, apathy bow along with it.

If this topic devolves in to "another gun debate pissing contest", it will be nobody's fault but your own.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:52 am**

As of this morning, looks like it was a lone shooter who had a security clearance despite a record, a legally-obtained weapon, and no clear motive yet.

Cue the gun-control fireworks yet again...

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:03 am**

He was being treated for mental illness with a history of violence with guns.
The government, keeper of our laws, lost his paperwork that would have convicted him of violence with a weapon, gave him a job with a security clearance and a permit to carry a weapon.

So immediately the politicians on the left come claiming this incident is proof the government could save us from crazy killers if only we gave the government some laws to enable them to stop people like this from being able to get a gun....

Makes a ton of sense.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:14 am**

Here's my question:

If, as it appears, the problem here was fundamentally one of enforcement (e.g. background checks and restrictions for the firearm and/or security clearance weren't handled properly), then I would expect to see legislation to strengthen background-check requirements (and/or punish enforcement failures) soon.

If that happens, I'll be curious to see where the NRA and gun-advocacy folk stand.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:30 am**

My question is did he still have a base clearance card, and if so, why? And the notion that base security is tight there is laughable. Although he fictionalized the story, read the book by Richard Marcinko called Red Cell. He and his team of men were tasked with finding security holes in many of the Navy's bases and that particular base was so easy to penetrate, the team practically had had a field day. He also claims little was done to address the issues he found afterwards.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:23 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:My question is did he still have a base clearance card, and if so, why? And the notion that base security is tight there is laughable. Although he fictionalized the story, read the book by Richard Marcinko called Red Cell. He and his team of men were tasked with finding security holes in many of the Navy's bases and that particular base was so easy to penetrate, the team practically had had a field day. He also claims little was done to address the issues he found afterwards.

He didn't "still have one"...he had just been rehired and given a new one! By the same government who had been treating him for "hearing voices in his head". The same government that says they need a new law to be able to keep guys like that from getting guns!!

WTF?!? Like the ones they have which already provide that exact remedy are...what? The wrong color? Out of style? Too hard to read?

How does an argument like that get any credence under the examination of a journalists?!? In the minds of citizen voters?!?

If someone who worked for me tried to use that logic to get me to approve them receiving any kind of additional authority to mess with my life I'd fire there ass on the spot!

PS: Apparently the shooter used a shotgun, not an assault rifle. Just like Joe Biden said he should. 'No one needs an assault rifle...just get yourself a shotgun'. Way to go Joe! You were right....sort of.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:45 pm**

Foil wrote:Here's my question:

If, as it appears, the problem here was fundamentally one of enforcement (e.g. background checks and restrictions for the firearm and/or security clearance weren't handled properly), then I would expect to see legislation to strengthen background-check requirements (and/or punish enforcement failures) soon.

If that happens, I'll be curious to see where the NRA and gun-advocacy folk stand.

I wonder Foil, seeing as how all the latest mass shooters including the Navel Shipyard shooter, were addicted to violent video games, would you also agree that background checks should be done before anyone could purchase such a game?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... games.html

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/12/ ... deo-games/

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:55 pm**

If it were made a political issue, I can see why some people might be motivated to change/"strengthen" regulations/laws. On the other hand, doesn't this kind of thing just mean that heads need to roll? Does it really make sense to grow bureaucracy every time something goes wrong (or in this case, someone screws up)?

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:13 pm**

woodchip wrote:I wonder Foil, seeing as how all the latest mass shooters including the Navel Shipyard shooter, were addicted to violent video games, would you also agree that background checks should be done before anyone could purchase such a game?

The game connection appears to be a symptom, not a cause, so no.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Does it really make sense to grow bureaucracy every time something goes wrong (or in this case, someone screws up)?

It depends.

Is this an issue of poor enforcement, or lax laws?

[ Personally, I think it might be both. For example, at my current workplace, I received an "interim" security clearance before the full background investigation was done, but I think the interim clearance still required a lesser check. ]

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:37 pm**

hell, given the initial rush by a couple folks here for a possible terrorist act.....have we now seen the first Buddist terror suspect? If so, I think that finally manages to cover all the major religions as potential excuses for terror. Well, we haven't heard of any Rastafarian terrorists, yet, but still......

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:12 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:He didn't "still have one"...he had just been rehired and given a new one! By the same government who had been treating him for "hearing voices in his head". The same government that says they need a new law to be able to keep guys like that from getting guns!!

WTF?!? Like the ones they have which already provide that exact remedy are...what? The wrong color? Out of style? Too hard to read?

How does an argument like that get any credence under the examination of a journalists?!? In the minds of citizen voters?!?

If someone who worked for me tried to use that logic to get me to approve them receiving any kind of additional authority to mess with my life I'd fire there ass on the spot!

PS: Apparently the shooter used a shotgun, not an assault rifle. Just like Joe Biden said he should. 'No one needs an assault rifle...just get yourself a shotgun'. Way to go Joe! You were right....sort of.

Idiots. But do you honestly even think it possible to fix the system by changing the people we elect? Hardly. Every bureaucrat in government is only in their position to further their own career, not to actually fix problems and issues like they're supposed to do, and yes, I know that's the normal situation. However, butt kissing, schmoozing and back stabbing is even worse in a military hierarchy, so there's a double dose of bureaucratitis that's not going to get changed anytime soon. The system is like a stovepipe when it comes to decision making, everything and every order travels upward in one little channel. Like I said, read Red Cell. It'll make you wonder how our military system even manages to get anything done.

DescentBB

New shooting

New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting

Re: New shooting