Shooter at DC Shipyard

[leftysergeant]

While this Directive does address the carrying of loaded Firearms, I think you'll find that it is an update to an earlier directive regarding actual Carrying of Loaded firearms... As far as I know this has never been a practice on military installations except for Security or Law Enforcement personnel.

What I am more interested in and what is a key question is "possession" not the actual carrying of weapons... When did the more restrictive procedures begin in terms of registration and keeping in an arms room as was stated previously... I think there was a change in the 90's and this directive does not address the possession of private firearms at all...

There may have been some variation between major commands, but I do know that the ownership and posession on-post of private weapons by active-duty people was always subject to some rules. The registration requirement is not that big a thing when you think of it. It would only effect those personnel whom any rational unit of government would forbid to carry weapons, mostly those accused of violent crimes or undergoing psychiatric treatment or evaluation.

It was my experience just about everywhere that people in the barracks put their weapons in the arms room. I remember once having to escort an individual through out-processing on a BCD because he was caught storing his private M1911 in the trunk of his car after he slapped his girlfriend around.

Clinton did nothing to reduce the number of private firearms on post. There are probably more on Ft Lewis right now than when I was there in the 1980s.

 

[Hellbound]

No



I mentioned other reasons why I think it was mad Alexis was able to still be a lawful gun owner. The discharge on its own I would not have expected to be enough. Add it to the the other reasons, primarily the shooting incidents and then mental health issues and it becomes a picture of someone clearly not suitable to have a gun.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/shooting-reignites-gun-talk-bills-cold-20276090

"The gunman in the mass shootings at the Washington Navy Yard, Aaron Alexis, had a history of violent outbursts, was at least twice accused of firing guns in anger and was in the early stages of treatment for serious mental problems, according to court records and U.S. law enforcement officials."

That clearly does not apply to all ex-military people. The issue I have raised on numerous occasions is that just because someone is law abiding does not mean they are suitable to have a gun.

I was refering to the phrasing of your original post, where you stated "Discharged from the Navy (honourable or not)" as one of the reasons. And again, above, you suggest the discharge on it's own as if it should even be a mark against a person.

I'm telling you that shouldn't even be a factor, because you can't get anything better than an honorable discharge from the military. Which made me suspect you either misunderstood that ANY time a person leaves military service it's a discharge (even if it's because you did everything you were supposed to do and never got in trouble), or that you left out a modifier in your description (i.e.-"his early discharge", or something similar).

In other words, you may not have meant it that way, but the phrasing you used certainly suggested that anyone who left the military had that counted as a mark against them, even if they left because (for example) they retired after 30 years of good service (which is also an honorable discharge).

 

[Nessie]

I was refering to the phrasing of your original post, where you stated "Discharged from the Navy (honourable or not)" as one of the reasons. And again, above, you suggest the discharge on it's own as if it should even be a mark against a person.

I'm telling you that shouldn't even be a factor, because you can't get anything better than an honorable discharge from the military. Which made me suspect you either misunderstood that ANY time a person leaves military service it's a discharge (even if it's because you did everything you were supposed to do and never got in trouble), or that you left out a modifier in your description (i.e.-"his early discharge", or something similar).

In other words, you may not have meant it that way, but the phrasing you used certainly suggested that anyone who left the military had that counted as a mark against them, even if they left because (for example) they retired after 30 years of good service (which is also an honorable discharge).

Here we have someone given an honourable discharge but......

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-navy-shooter-idUSBRE98G0OF20130917

"A military official said that before discharging Alexis honorably, the Navy had been pursuing a general discharge against him on a series of eight to 10 misconduct charges, ranging from traffic offenses to disorderly conduct.

However, when it became evident the case against Alexis would not support a general discharge, he was allowed to apply for an early discharge under what is known as the Early Enlisted Transition Program, which is only used for honorable discharges, the military official said.

Alexis had a spate of run-ins with both civilian and military authorities while he was in the Navy Reserve as full-time support employee. He was arrested in DeKalb County, Georgia, in 2009 on a disorderly conduct charge, and was accused of discharging a firearm by authorities in Fort Worth, Texas.

His misconduct in the Navy Reserve included everything from unauthorized absences from work to insubordination and disorderly conduct, including one involving drunkenness."

So whatever you want to call the discharge, it was significant to whether or not Alexis should have been allowed by law to have a gun. The navy wanted rid of him because he was a trouble maker and if that meant giving him an honourable discharge, so be it.

It is like police long service and good conduct medals. They mean nothing as everyone get one, whatever their conduct has been, which is sad as it waters down the award for those who have stuck at the job and behaved themself.

So if I appear to be rude to those who have a genuine honourable discharge, apologies, but blame the naval discharge system not me.

 

[Xulld]

Yeah because normally that's how these things end. Someone with a concealed carry permit emerges from anonymity and saves the day.

Wildcat you're a regular Walter Mitty.

Right . . . a good guy with a gun stopped the shooter, just like every other shooter who does not kill themselves, and then even when that does happen it is usually not until challenged by a good person with a gun who is risking life to stop someone from killing innocents.

I do not understand why you feel the need to narrow the goal posts to a CCW civilian, I mean I can speculate . . . . A good guy with a gun is a larger set, why narrow it? We need more good people willing to risk their life to stop poeple with malicous intent.

That is a very uncontroversial statement, it is not fun to poke at that, so you narrow it and try to find any leverage for your narrative. Pretty lame.

 

[Hellbound]

Here we have someone given an honourable discharge but......

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-navy-shooter-idUSBRE98G0OF20130917

"A military official said that before discharging Alexis honorably, the Navy had been pursuing a general discharge against him on a series of eight to 10 misconduct charges, ranging from traffic offenses to disorderly conduct.

However, when it became evident the case against Alexis would not support a general discharge, he was allowed to apply for an early discharge under what is known as the Early Enlisted Transition Program, which is only used for honorable discharges, the military official said.

Alexis had a spate of run-ins with both civilian and military authorities while he was in the Navy Reserve as full-time support employee. He was arrested in DeKalb County, Georgia, in 2009 on a disorderly conduct charge, and was accused of discharging a firearm by authorities in Fort Worth, Texas.

His misconduct in the Navy Reserve included everything from unauthorized absences from work to insubordination and disorderly conduct, including one involving drunkenness."

So whatever you want to call the discharge, it was significant to whether or not Alexis should have been allowed by law to have a gun. The navy wanted rid of him because he was a trouble maker and if that meant giving him an honourable discharge, so be it.

It is like police long service and good conduct medals. They mean nothing as everyone get one, whatever their conduct has been, which is sad as it waters down the award for those who have stuck at the job and behaved themself.

So if I appear to be rude to those who have a genuine honourable discharge, apologies, but blame the naval discharge system not me.

I'm rewriting this after thinking about it.

What you stated above is basically the point I was trying to make. I don't disagree with what you meant, first off. But the way you phrased it implied that just the fact that he had a discharge was a point against him. What you meant, as you clarified, is that the circumstances of his discharge were a point against him.

I wasn't disagreeing with what you meant, just pointing out that your phrasing didn't clearly communicate what you intended, and implied that any discharge was a "black mark", even if honorable.

Does that make more sense now? I was just trying to provide clarity. My initial post was meant jokingly, I apologizer if you missed that (tone can be hard to read). You've clarified what you meant, and I have no issue with that, I was just trying to point out that the phrasing could be easily mis-read.

 

[Reheat]

There may have been some variation between major commands, but I do know that the ownership and posession on-post of private weapons by active-duty people was always subject to some rules. The registration requirement is not that big a thing when you think of it. It would only effect those personnel whom any rational unit of government would forbid to carry weapons, mostly those accused of violent crimes or undergoing psychiatric treatment or evaluation.

No, you are wrong again. I entered active duty in 1967 and there were no restrictions on weapons in Officers quarters on the AF Base... NONE I lived both in a BOQ and in family housing. I had firearms and so did numerous others, which were kept in quarters. I also lived in on-base quarters during the 70's and had firearms in quarters. In fact, I bought some during that period.

And No, registration does not ONLY affect some, it affect all now even visitors. As I've said previously I'm addressing possession, not carry. The carry of firearms I suspect has been restricted for a long time.. I don't know when that was instituted, but my guess is that it has been at least since WWII. I'm guessing, but I know it has been restricted for a long, long time.

Clinton did nothing to reduce the number of private firearms on post. There are probably more on Ft Lewis right now than when I was there in the 1980s.

Since I can't refute that, I'll leave it be for now. But, there was a change in Registration policy during the 90's. I'm looking for it....

 

[dudalb]

This wasn't just any false flag, it was a false flag engineered specifically to destroy Alex Jones's credibility

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...ated-navy-yard-patsy-shooter-to-discredit-me/

The one complaint I have about that story is calling Jones a "Conservative" commentator. That gives way too much credit. Jones will swing to the left or to the right, depending on which bunch of suckers he thinks are ripe for the plucking this day. He definently hung out with the fringe left during the Bush administration. He switched to the fringe right after Obama was elected, and am sure he has contingy plans to swing left again just in case.....

 

[leftysergeant]

No, you are wrong again. I entered active duty in 1967 and there were no restrictions on weapons in Officers quarters on the AF Base... NONE I lived both in a BOQ and in family housing. I had firearms and so did numerous others, which were kept in quarters. I also lived in on-base quarters during the 70's and had firearms in quarters. In fact, I bought some during that period.

I knew a lot of enlisted that had weapons in their quarters, but people in the barracks were still required to keep them in the arms room.

And No, registration does not ONLY affect some, it affect all now even visitors. As I've said previously I'm addressing possession, not carry. The carry of firearms I suspect has been restricted for a long time.. I don't know when that was instituted, but my guess is that it has been at least since WWII. I'm guessing, but I know it has been restricted for a long, long time.

The registration policy, at least at Ft Lewis, where I was stationed and where I first began using the sportsman's range after I retired, was a local order, and has since then, in 2010, been rescinded for off-post personnel, by the post commander. The rules on transporting them and storage in the barracks remain the same as I can remember, as far back as my first enlistment, in the Air Force, in 1966-70.

 

[trustbutverify]

Another sad day for America.

It's really depressing every time we're reminded just how uncivilised we really are.

Which country do you consider "civilized"?

 

[trustbutverify]

This wasn't just any false flag, it was a false flag engineered specifically to destroy Alex Jones's credibility

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...ated-navy-yard-patsy-shooter-to-discredit-me/

Incredible.

 

[Checkmite]

So evidently, this fellow carved the messages "better off this way" and "my ELF weapon" into the wooden parts of the shotgun he carried into the Washington Navy Yard. Obviously the first message refers to his suicidal attitude, whereas the second refers to his typical schizophrenic delusion about being persecuted with "radio waves".

Yet the news, citing "officials", claim these messages are "mysterious", "unexplained", investigators "don't know what they refer to", and so forth. I do not know why. Is this one of those things like the Roanoke Colony "mystery", where the answer is actually painfully self-evident to anyone with a mote of brains but everyone prefers to ignore it because the words "mystery" and "baffled" make for better copy (or something)?

 

[Travis]

Right . . . a good guy with a gun stopped the shooter, just like every other shooter who does not kill themselves, and then even when that does happen it is usually not until challenged by a good person with a gun who is risking life to stop someone from killing innocents.

I do not understand why you feel the need to narrow the goal posts to a CCW civilian, I mean I can speculate . . . . A good guy with a gun is a larger set, why narrow it? We need more good people willing to risk their life to stop poeple with malicous intent.

That is a very uncontroversial statement, it is not fun to poke at that, so you narrow it and try to find any leverage for your narrative. Pretty lame.

But "good guys" are themselves rare. They are a highly unique aberration among the larger morass we call "society."

Since most people are not trustworthy you can understand why I want as few of them to have guns as possible. And that I would want strict guidelines so we can find those special people that aren't complete monsters and make sure they are the only ones that have those guns. For the record I would disqualify myself as not one of those people that could be trusted with a gun.

So a good guy with a gun stopped this shooter. That is a victory I would think. But why would we use this event to arm more people when the very, very few people that should have guns probably already do?

 

[Reheat]

For the record I would disqualify myself as not one of those people that could be trusted with a gun.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Travis]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Hey, my neighborhood might be mostly populated with methamphetamine dealers and my friends might be mostly insane but.....what was the other part?

 

[gumboot]

Don't go out into the Great Outdoors much, do you?
Camo has become standard hunting and hiking gear (a couple of people I know whose hobby is wildlife photography wears camo gear for the same reason hunters do:less chance the animal will notice you and run away).
"Cold Steel" knives wear longer and are sharper then standard knives;most of your high quality kitchen knives are Cold Steel.
I own Night Vision Goggles and they are handy for general outdoor use;Ironically enough, very useful at night at SCA events.

The purpose of camouflage is to disrupt the identifiable "pattern" of the human body. This is highly effective in humans, because we're very familiar with the human body, and therefore very good at picking up its "pattern" unless it's concealed.

Wild animals are not familiar with the human body's pattern, thus wearing camouflage is pointless. It's even more pointless when you consider that very few animals rely primarily on sight for detecting predators.

Hunters in New Zealand normally wear high-visibility clothing to prevent them being shot by other hunters. This clothing in no way hampers their ability to surprise their prey.

Anyone who tells you they wear camouflage so they can sneak up on animals is an idiot.

 

[gumboot]

Which country do you consider "civilized"?

Every country is civilised. None are as civilised as we like to think they are.

 

[gumboot]

Right . . . a good guy with a gun stopped the shooter, just like every other shooter who does not kill themselves, and then even when that does happen it is usually not until challenged by a good person with a gun who is risking life to stop someone from killing innocents.

I do not understand why you feel the need to narrow the goal posts to a CCW civilian, I mean I can speculate . . . . A good guy with a gun is a larger set, why narrow it? We need more good people willing to risk their life to stop poeple with malicous intent.

That is a very uncontroversial statement, it is not fun to poke at that, so you narrow it and try to find any leverage for your narrative. Pretty lame.

Actually, something I'd be curious to see is some info on how spree killers/mass shooters are stopped. I suspect the vast majority kill themselves, and virtually all remaining shooters are stopped by law enforcement officers. I suspect civilians stop only a minute number of killers, if any at all.

Obviously that's just a hypothesis, I could be very wrong. An interesting avenue to explore.

 

[Nessie]

I'm rewriting this after thinking about it.

What you stated above is basically the point I was trying to make. I don't disagree with what you meant, first off. But the way you phrased it implied that just the fact that he had a discharge was a point against him. What you meant, as you clarified, is that the circumstances of his discharge were a point against him.

I wasn't disagreeing with what you meant, just pointing out that your phrasing didn't clearly communicate what you intended, and implied that any discharge was a "black mark", even if honorable.

Does that make more sense now? I was just trying to provide clarity. My initial post was meant jokingly, I apologizer if you missed that (tone can be hard to read). You've clarified what you meant, and I have no issue with that, I was just trying to point out that the phrasing could be easily mis-read.

No problems Thanks for accepting my clarification, some here ignore such and run with the wrong interpretation in a disingenuous way of attacking the person.

 

[Hellbound]

No problems Thanks for accepting my clarification, some here ignore such and run with the wrong interpretation in a disingenuous way of attacking the person.

No problem. I realized as I was thinking about it that I could easily be misread as arguing against your point in my first post, so I'm guilty of what I was trying to point out to you, myself

 

[Nessie]

Actually, something I'd be curious to see is some info on how spree killers/mass shooters are stopped. I suspect the vast majority kill themselves, and virtually all remaining shooters are stopped by law enforcement officers. I suspect civilians stop only a minute number of killers, if any at all.

Obviously that's just a hypothesis, I could be very wrong. An interesting avenue to explore.

Interesting article here

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html

In a study by Mother Jones under the FBI definition of a mass shooting, of the last 63 mass shootings none have been stopped by a civilian CCW.

However, there are six recorded instances of what appear to have been the start of a mass shooting that were stopped by a civilian CCW with either no deaths or too few to count as mass shootings.

I find the argument of more CCW means fewer mass or other shootings interesting as it is based on so little evidence and lots of assumptions. My biggest issue with it is that it is assumed (by the linked article and many others) that law abiding and ex military means good guy. It does not.