Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Three points about the Naval Yard shooting and gun control

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I have three obvious things to point out about this Navy shooting that fly in the face of the standard gun lobby arguments.

1. The shooter bought his shotgun legally. This is directly against the belief we always hear that"criminals don't buy guns legally".

2. In spite of having armed security forces on base, the shooter was still able to kill a dozen people. Once again this is directly opposite of what the gun lobby constantly tells us, that criminals don't attack places where people are known to have guns.

3. How many times have we been told that if more people carried guns no one wouldn get massacred because all the patriotic gun fanatics would shoot the shooter first?

That's zero for three for the gun myths.




posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Here we go again another post about guns.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
If I may..........


CB328
I have three obvious things to point out about this Navy shooting that fly in the face of the standard gun lobby arguments.

1. The shooter bought his shotgun legally. This is directly against the belief we always hear that"criminals don't buy guns legally".


Up to this point this man was NOT a criminal. He was never convicted of anything that would be considered criminal. However, he did have a history with the law, and in each case he was arrested but not charged, so not convicted, so nothing went on his record to prevent him from getting a license to buy a gun. Ok, even so, I'll give you, that's 1 out of how many, Yeah....odds are pretty astronomical against it happening.


CB328
2. In spite of having armed security forces on base, the shooter was still able to kill a dozen people. Once again this is directly opposite of what the gun lobby constantly tells us, that criminals don't attack places where people are known to have guns.


People at military bases in the U.S. are NOT allowed to carry their side arms on base. The district of Columbia (D.C.) is one of the strictest gun free zones in the country. Only security is allowed that privilege. In this particular case, the shooter (AFAIK) killed the first guard with the shotgun, then took his 9 mm pistol. Then, entered the building and began shooting the occupants (unarmed workers gathered in the cafeteria) from a 4th floor overlook. It took approx 10 minutes for the armed security forces to arrive and "neutralize the suspect". Ten WHOLE minutes of him shooting at an unarmed opposition.


CB328
3. How many times have we been told that if more people carried guns no one wouldn't get massacred because all the patriotic gun fanatics would shoot the shooter first?

That's zero for three for the gun myths.


That still stands. He was neutralized by trained forces with guns, ONCE they were on the scene. Imagine how much sooner it would have been if some of the trained military personnel in the building were allowed to carry their side arms? More than likely less killing of innocents would have occurred (but that's just a supposition on my part).

edit on 9/17/2013 by Krakatoa because: Added clarification



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


He reached out for help and didn't get it, and besides military police is was a gun free zone I believe.

Anf didn't you already make a thread identical to this?
edit on 17-9-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by CB328
 


He reached out for help and didn't get it, and besides military police is was a gun free zone I believe.

Anf didn't you already make a thread identical to this?
edit on 17-9-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


It seems to be the thing to do now spew some garbage and never return to defend their thread.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
And how many more would have been killed if there were no defenses ?

And, can anyone prove 100% that he actually bought the shotgun 'legally'.

Even if didn't or couldn't, he would have got illegally right ?

The way the Liberal MSM has been shouting about the AR-15 BeeEss story and been proven wrong on all counts, I question all sources.



Alexis reportedly legally purchased a shotgun in Lorton, Va., last week, according to The Washington Times citing three law enforcement officials on background. He brought that gun with him Monday morning and then allegedly obtained two handguns from some of his victims, which included a mix of civilian and military workers.

story



Hmmm.
Now it was a gun free zone.

How would he "allegedly" get loaded guns from "some of his victims, which included a mix of civilian and military workers" ?????



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   

CB328
I have three obvious things to point out about this Navy shooting that fly in the face of the standard gun lobby arguments.

1. The shooter bought his shotgun legally. This is directly against the belief we always hear that"criminals don't buy guns legally".

2. In spite of having armed security forces on base, the shooter was still able to kill a dozen people. Once again this is directly opposite of what the gun lobby constantly tells us, that criminals don't attack places where people are known to have guns.

3. How many times have we been told that if more people carried guns no one wouldn get massacred because all the patriotic gun fanatics would shoot the shooter first?

That's zero for three for the gun myths.


If the Military people were armed (thanks Clinton) would he been able to kill 12 people with a shotgun?

He wasn't a criminal until he started to kill people....

Show me a case where there were too many people armed?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


He was a psychotic maniac.

He should have known better to think it was legal to kill people.

Let's make sure this never happens again.
{ oops we said that the last time }

I suppose we could outlaw psychotic mania and it will solve the whole problem ?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by Carreau removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Now THAT is the sort of thinking that gets things done!



Is it too much to ask, for every individual case to be examined without reference to other cases? Given no two nutters are exactly alike, it makes NO sense what so ever to treat them as such.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join