• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Now They're Saying The Naval Yard Shooter Only Had A Shotgun!

Cuz Joe Biden told him to use a shotgun ... remember?
btw ... he may have used the shotgun to kill a guard(s) for other gun(s) ... feel better?

Hell Fire...Dick Cheney shot a man in the face with one at close range and he didn't die. Thank goodness it was number 6 bird shot and not double ought buck.
 
Last edited:
He could definitely have dropped a man with a slug to the head. So it depends on what kind of shotgun shells he was using.

For your information he shot two law enforcement officers and took their Glock 22 Gen4's. From there on killing unarmed folks was child's play.

Did you happen to notice that even though he was in the middle of a naval base that no military personnel were involved? All they did was allow him to enter the area.

I worked in a Top Secret Government project for years and one time they came up with a little booth which could only accommodate one person at a time. We had to key in a code in order to exit the booth into the restricted area. The keypunch operators had a system which would help each other when they had forgotten the code. We weren't allowed to write the numbers down anywhere on anything. As they entered they would put a trace of face powder on the four keys and then remembering the code for those who followed was child's play. Kinda par for the course when a bunch of bureaucrats are managing procedures. This kinda gave them an out when they took the lie detector test every 90 days.
 
Last edited:
For your information he shot two law enforcement officers and took their Glock 22 Gen4's. From there on killing unarmed folks was child's play.

Yes, the Navy Yard was a gun free zone, so it was like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm sure. The morons who established security policy at the Yard made sure that law abiding workers would be unarmed and bad actors would find it easy to get in with guns, such were the unintended results of their security policies. One good guy with a gun could have saved a lot of lives.

The concept of gun free zones is fundamentally irrational in modern day America. There should be no areas where good people are not allowed to adequately defend themselves.

Unless officials can guarantee and be responsible for the fact that ALL guns will be excluded from an area by means of adequate security there should be no such thing as a gun free zone.
 
Yes, the Navy Yard was a gun free zone, so it was like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm sure. The morons who established security policy at the Yard made sure that law abiding workers would be unarmed and bad actors would find it easy to get in with guns, such were the unintended results of their security policies. One good guy with a gun could have saved a lot of lives.

The concept of gun free zones is fundamentally irrational in modern day America. There should be no areas where good people are not allowed to adequately defend themselves.

Unless officials can guarantee and be responsible for the fact that ALL guns will be excluded from an area by means of adequate security there should be no such thing as a gun free zone.

Did you just make up this bull**** or could it be that you are big time NRA?

What the hell is wrong with a background check with a national registry listing gun owners and requiring that a nut who is hearing voices being denied the right to own a firearm?
 
He was a contractor, so that was not a factor at all. And can you prove that "those flags would have disqualified just about anyone"?

Because I already described what is needed or not needed for a Security Clearance. These checks look for threats of espionage, not violence.

You should catch up on your reading:

Minority-Owned Businesses | SBA.gov

The Navy Yard in question was penny pinching on security:

Audit: Big problems with Navy program that screens contractors - CNN.com

There is really no other obvious reasons why this guy was allowed this type of clearance with his history:

Alleged Navy Yard Gunman Held Security Clearance - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
Damn.....If he can fight off a company and the DC police and kill twelve people with a shotgun I definitely want to be on his team. NRA Influence? Surely Not!

I've never heard of a sniper using a shotgun. 'Course I'm just 79.

A shotgun is an extremely effective close quarters combat weapon, I fail to see your point here.
 
A shotgun is an extremely effective close quarters combat weapon, I fail to see your point here.
And the weapon of choice for many for that very reason. I believe the point of the OP is that even though the shooter did use a shotgun, he couldn't possibly have used a shotgun. Of course, I'm just 63. Maybe if I was 79, I would understand that a shotgun can't possibly be a shotgun.
 
And the weapon of choice for many for that very reason. I believe the point of the OP is that even though the shooter did use a shotgun, he couldn't possibly have used a shotgun. Of course, I'm just 63. Maybe if I was 79, I would understand that a shotgun can't possibly be a shotgun.

How would I know that? I got my gun experience in the army in 1957/58 and national guards till 1964. When I was discharged(honorably) in 1964 I was the commander of a 50 ton, m-48 medium patton tank crew. The tank had a 90mm main gun which fired a 42 pound shell, a commander's gun mounted up top, a Browning .50 caliber machine gun which fired 500 rounds a minute and a .30 caliber coaxial machine gun alongside the main gun which the driver fired. The problem most tankers had was replacing the five pound extractors each time the main gun was cleaned. The guns were rifled and the main gun could blow a deuce and a half truck 75 ft. into the air at a range of 1500 yards.

Personally I own a 12 gauge Remington semi automatic shotgun, a Marlin .30 caliber rifle and a chrome plated .38 caliber S&W chief's special revolver which I load with magnum hollow points when I travel. The car jackers will be making their last mistake when they get to me. I would have no problem with a national registry for all American weapons and 30 day delays on potential gun purchases in order to methodically check the backgrounds of every potential weapon owner. This country is going to hell in a handbasket because the people running things act like kindergartners. Why don't people see that the NRA is part of the gun sales staff....nothing more. They will fight anything that hinders gun buyers in any way.
 
Last edited:
How would I know that? I got my gun experience in the army in 1957/58 and national guards till 1964. When I was discharged(honorably) in 1964 I was the commander of a 50 ton, m-48 medium patton tank crew. The tank had a 90mm main gun which fired a 42 pound shell, a commander's gun mounted up top, a Browning .50 caliber machine gun which fired 500 rounds a minute and a .30 caliber coaxial machine gun alongside the main gun which the driver fired. The problem most tankers had was replacing the five pound extractors each time the main gun was cleaned. The guns were rifled and the main gun could blow a deuce and a half truck 75 ft. into the air at a range of 1500 yards.

Personally I own a 12 gauge Remington semi automatic shotgun, a Marlin .30 caliber rifle and a chrome plated .38 caliber S&W chief's special revolver which I load with magnum hollow points when I travel. The car jackers will be making their last mistake when they get to me. I would have no problem with a national registry for all American weapons and 30 day delays on potential gun purchases in order to methodically check the backgrounds of every potential weapon owner. This country is going to hell in a handbasket because the people running things act like kindergartners. Why don't people see that the NRA is part of the gun sales staff....nothing more. They will fight anything that hinders gun buyers in any way.
I have some experience and fire arms as well, and I shoot regularly. As has been pointed out, a 12 gage shotgun is a devastating weapon at close range, and it's entirely possible, and even likely, that even a poor shooter could kill 12 in close quarters in the time that elapsed before he was himself shot. In fact, it's fortunate he didn't kill more. At ten to twenty yards, it wouldn't matter much at all what specific load the shooter fired. I've killed a deer at 30 yards with a 12 gage loaded with #8. I would add that what the shooter might have picked up while on the killing spree really doesn't change what he brought to the scene at all. He took a shotgun because that's what he had, and that alone is more than sufficient for his demented task.
 
Last edited:
I have some experience and fire arms as well, and I shoot regularly. As has been pointed out, a 12 gage shotgun is a devastating weapon at close range, and it's entirely possible, and even likely, that even a poor shooter could kill 12 in close quarters in the time that elapsed before he was himself shot. In fact, it's fortunate he didn't kill more. At ten to twenty yards, it wouldn't matter much at all what specific load the shooter fired. I've killed a deer at 30 yards with a 12 gage loaded with #8. I would add that what the shooter might have picked up while on the killing spree really doesn't change what he brought to the scene at all. He took a shotgun because that's what he had, and that alone is more than sufficient for his demented task.

OK....how do you feel about a national registry and thirty day delays in weapons purchases? How about closing down gun shows which sell 40% of all purchases in a parking lot or even worse than that dishonest managers....not that that is even a possibility. Yeah Right.

Don't forget that it hasn't been long at all since a crazy son-of-a-bitch mowed down 20 first graders and half a dozen more who were brave enough to try and stop him. He didn't have a shotgun and he had multiple thirty clips for his AR-15.
 
You should catch up on your reading:

And once again let me state the obvious so you can't miss it:

A Security Clearance is interested in preventing espionage.

There, got it?

If you want to understand more of what a "Security Clearance" entails, I invite you to pursue DoD 5200, the "Personal Security Program".

http://eisen-shapiro.com/WebMaterials/52002r.pdf

Go ahead and read through it. It does not even state that having a criminal record prevents somebody from getting a clearance, as long as that activity does not open them up to blackmail. If he disclosed everything in his background (and since he had been in the Navy they already had it), and he does not show anything that would make him a threat to classified material, then there was no reason to deny it.

I can't say it any more plain then that. But here, feel free to read through it yourself. Below are some highlights that apply, the bold is my own:

C6.1.1.3. Establishing relevancy is one of the key objectives of the personnel
security adjudicative process in evaluating investigative material. It involves neither the
judgment of criminal guilt nor the determination of general suitability for a given
position; rather, it is the assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for a
responsibility that could, if abused, have unacceptable consequences for the national
security.

AP1.1.1.2.18. Public Records: Verification of divorce(s), bankruptcy,
etc., and any other court (civil or criminal) actions to which subject has been or is a
party within the scope of investigation, when known or developed. Divorces,
annulments, and legal separations of subject shall be verified only when there is reason
to believe that the grounds for the action could reflect on subject's suitability for a
position of trust.

Sexual behavior is a security concern if it involves a criminal offense, indicates a
personality or emotional disorder, subjects the individual to undue influence or
coercion, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion
.
(Sexual orientation or
preference may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining
a person's eligibility for a security clearance.)

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:
(1) reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers,
coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances;
(2) the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material
facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications,
award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness,
or award fiduciary responsibilities;
(3) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and
material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority,
or other official representative in connection with a personnel security or
trustworthiness determination;
(4) personal conduct or concealment of information that increases an individual's
vulnerability to coercion, exploitation or pressure;
(5) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations2
(6) association with persons involved in criminal activity.

An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds. Unexplained affluence is often linked to proceeds
from financially profitable criminal acts.

But feel free to read through the entire thing yourself. As I have been saying, these investigations are to ensure the security of classified documents and material, nothing else. You can give me all the crazy links you want, unless you can prove he was a risk to the security of information, there was nothing to keep him from getting a clearance.
 
OK....how do you feel about a national registry and thirty day delays in weapons purchases? How about closing down gun shows which sell 40% of all purchases in a parking lot or even worse than that dishonest managers....not that that is even a possibility. Yeah Right.

How about mandatory reporting of individuals with psychological conditions that prohibit the owning of firearms?

That is the biggest problem with the system now. Both this guy and the Aurora shooter (as well as the Sandy Hook) shooter all had psychological problems, and either guns in their household or were allowed to purchase guns. And because nothing of their background was in any kind of system they could not be stopped.
 
How about mandatory reporting of individuals with psychological conditions that prohibit the owning of firearms?

That is the biggest problem with the system now. Both this guy and the Aurora shooter (as well as the Sandy Hook) shooter all had psychological problems, and either guns in their household or were allowed to purchase guns. And because nothing of their background was in any kind of system they could not be stopped.

You've learned well. One thing I remember very well about the Reagan years. He cut federal spending on state mental hospitals and many of them had to cut the care they had been giving. He had the highest homeless rate in decades. Many of the mental patients which were released were sleeping under cardboard boxes. That mental treatment talk is nothing more than a smokescreen to avoid setting up a firearm control system which would actually work....not that you cons have ever really wanted it. One thing I've always noticed about Republicans....they have to have their bibles and their guns.
 
OK....how do you feel about a national registry and thirty day delays in weapons purchases? How about closing down gun shows which sell 40% of all purchases in a parking lot or even worse than that dishonest managers....not that that is even a possibility. Yeah Right.

Don't forget that it hasn't been long at all since a crazy son-of-a-bitch mowed down 20 first graders and half a dozen more who were brave enough to try and stop him. He didn't have a shotgun and he had multiple thirty clips for his AR-15.
as you already point out... The weapons at Sandy Hook were registered, the owner passed a background check and a waiting period was completely irrelevant. See...that's the problem with just proposing laws without applying actual thought.
 
And once again let me state the obvious so you can't miss it:

A Security Clearance is interested in preventing espionage.

There, got it?

If you want to understand more of what a "Security Clearance" entails, I invite you to pursue DoD 5200, the "Personal Security Program".

http://eisen-shapiro.com/WebMaterials/52002r.pdf

Go ahead and read through it. It does not even state that having a criminal record prevents somebody from getting a clearance, as long as that activity does not open them up to blackmail. If he disclosed everything in his background (and since he had been in the Navy they already had it), and he does not show anything that would make him a threat to classified material, then there was no reason to deny it.

I can't say it any more plain then that. But here, feel free to read through it yourself. Below are some highlights that apply, the bold is my own:











But feel free to read through the entire thing yourself. As I have been saying, these investigations are to ensure the security of classified documents and material, nothing else. You can give me all the crazy links you want, unless you can prove he was a risk to the security of information, there was nothing to keep him from getting a clearance.

Please point out where that says anything about Military Contractors
 
I agree. It seems like he may have tried getting help. He was into meditation, which was probably calming to him. It's difficult to know what mental health issues he had, and what caused them. I am kind of interested to know those answers. It's sad and tragic that he was untreated and may have never even been guided to seek proper treatment. Looks like he had a lot of friends. None of them knew how to help, see the problem, etc. very sad for so many.


I'm all for it -- when you're paranoid, hearing voices and have insomnia, you're a mass shooter waiting to happen. We really should address this ****. There's no good reason not to.
 
I don't think it should be about deciding who is dangerous. It should be about helping people before they become dangerous. The guy was showing warning signs for years.

The cops didn't even refer him a mental health expert when he contacted them about voices and paranoia.

There probably needs to be institutional changes to deal and respond to such situations differently.



Oh yes, because who are we to decide what is a danger to others, and place this kind of stigma on a person?

Now realize I do not believe that, but that is going to be the kneejerk reaction from the other side I am sure. They blame the weapon instead of the person using the weapon.

Which is funny, because I have left my gun alone for a great many months and even years, and it has never once got up and killed anybody.
 
I don't think more guns is the solution. The guy wasn't stopped until the police came.

I had an armed guard in my school, and I still worried about shootings. He can't be everywhere at once, and he was barely visible on a daily basis.

I worry for my niece. She is 12 and her school already had a bomb threat.

The world is ****ing scary.


Aren't the "good guys with guns" supposed to stop the bad guys with guns? They're not supposed to be a supply of them, I'm sure of that!
 
You've learned well. One thing I remember very well about the Reagan years. He cut federal spending on state mental hospitals and many of them had to cut the care they had been giving.

Actually, that had nothing to do with the President himself. Now this is almost getting off-topic, so I will only say this once. To pay attention and read closely (and even do some research for yourself).

In the mid 1970's, the issue of "Involuntary Commitment" had gone all the way to the US Supreme Court. And this resulted in 2 landmark decisions.

The first was O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975), which stated that confining a non-dangerous individual against their will was an illegal nonjudicial form of incarceration, therefore in violation to an individual's right to liberty.

A State cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
Holding of 422 U.S. 563, Unanimous decision, Chief Justice Burger concurring.

Now that did start to turn things around, but at that time the only real requirement was that there be a "preponderance of the evidence" that the individual was a danger to themselves or others, not the overwhelming evidence that is required today.

That was the first blow to mandatory commitment. The second came 3 years later in 1978.

In Addington v. Texas (1978), the Court again weighed in on involuntary commitment. In this case, they raised the bar even higher, essentially making it a legal procedure in order to commit somebody against their will. The State had to present "clear and convincing evidence" in order to commit somebody beyond 72 hours. This caused a lot of mentally ill people to submit "Addington Declarations", which pretty much stated that the state had 72 hours to make determinations to how they were a danger, or to release them. Most were able to slow this down by right of the huge number of such petitions filed, but within a year the patients were leaving the hospitals in droves.

This, and not the President is what opened the floodgates for the mentally ill to leave the Mental Hospitals and become homeless on the streets. The late 1970's and early 1980's saw an exodus of former patients from these hospitals leaving them, and all to often becoming homeless. And with a lower number of inmates, of course the funding for these facilities decreased.

But it was not the lack of funding that led to the mentally unstable being kicked onto the streets. It is because they themselves got up and walked away, the hospitals then had funding cuts because of the greatly decreased population. By 1980

Now maybe you know a little more about the history of mental care in this country, and why it seemed that suddenly in the 1980's there were a huge number of mentally disturbed homeless on the streets. They were not kicked out by Reagan, they walked out due to 2 Supreme Court decisions. I for one remember the old Oregon State Mental Hospital in Salem. It was once a giant sprawling complex, with it's own private railroad for moving patients from one area to another, and over 3,000 beds.

Today it is a much smaller 620 bed facility, primarily for those criminally insane or a danger to themselves and others. The simple crazy people do not have to stay, so they do not.
 
Please point out where that says anything about Military Contractors

I can't, because the requirements are the same. Military, Civilian, Contractor, we all go through the exact same clearance process.

In fact, that is why such jobs are frequently sought after by former military who have clearances. They are generally good for 7 years, and are simply deactivated when we are no longer in a position that requires them. All he would have basically had to do is file to have his clearance reinstated because of job needs for the DoD, and they would have granted it.

I myself have a clearance, and had them several times. From 1984-1987 I had one because of my position in the military, it was suspended in 1987 because I moved to a position that did not require my having a clearance.

Then in 2008 I got a new one, once again because of my position. I held that until 2012 when I left active duty. It was reactivated in January 2013 and remains current because the job I now have in the Reserves mandates that I have an active Secret clearance. ANd reactivating the clearance is a simple administrative procedure, nothing more.

This guy got out of the Navy 2 years ago, where he had a position that mandated such a clearance. I bet they did the exact same thing for him. The clearance is the same for all members who work for the Government, it does not matter who they are or where the work.

There is no "Military Secret Clearance", "DoD Secret Clearance", "State Department Secret Clearance", "FBI Secret Clearance", etc, etc, etc.

What about all of this do you not comprehend?
 
Damn.....If he can fight off a company and the DC police and kill twelve people with a shotgun I definitely want to be on his team. NRA Influence? Surely Not!

I've never heard of a sniper using a shotgun. 'Course I'm just 79.

You are on his team. He's a liberal Democrat.
 
Actually, that had nothing to do with the President himself. Now this is almost getting off-topic, so I will only say this once. To pay attention and read closely (and even do some research for yourself).

In the mid 1970's, the issue of "Involuntary Commitment" had gone all the way to the US Supreme Court. And this resulted in 2 landmark decisions.

The first was O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975), which stated that confining a non-dangerous individual against their will was an illegal nonjudicial form of incarceration, therefore in violation to an individual's right to liberty.


Holding of 422 U.S. 563, Unanimous decision, Chief Justice Burger concurring.

Now that did start to turn things around, but at that time the only real requirement was that there be a "preponderance of the evidence" that the individual was a danger to themselves or others, not the overwhelming evidence that is required today.

That was the first blow to mandatory commitment. The second came 3 years later in 1978.

In Addington v. Texas (1978), the Court again weighed in on involuntary commitment. In this case, they raised the bar even higher, essentially making it a legal procedure in order to commit somebody against their will. The State had to present "clear and convincing evidence" in order to commit somebody beyond 72 hours. This caused a lot of mentally ill people to submit "Addington Declarations", which pretty much stated that the state had 72 hours to make determinations to how they were a danger, or to release them. Most were able to slow this down by right of the huge number of such petitions filed, but within a year the patients were leaving the hospitals in droves.

This, and not the President is what opened the floodgates for the mentally ill to leave the Mental Hospitals and become homeless on the streets. The late 1970's and early 1980's saw an exodus of former patients from these hospitals leaving them, and all to often becoming homeless. And with a lower number of inmates, of course the funding for these facilities decreased.

But it was not the lack of funding that led to the mentally unstable being kicked onto the streets. It is because they themselves got up and walked away, the hospitals then had funding cuts because of the greatly decreased population. By 1980

Now maybe you know a little more about the history of mental care in this country, and why it seemed that suddenly in the 1980's there were a huge number of mentally disturbed homeless on the streets. They were not kicked out by Reagan, they walked out due to 2 Supreme Court decisions. I for one remember the old Oregon State Mental Hospital in Salem. It was once a giant sprawling complex, with it's own private railroad for moving patients from one area to another, and over 3,000 beds.

Today it is a much smaller 620 bed facility, primarily for those criminally insane or a danger to themselves and others. The simple crazy people do not have to stay, so they do not.

Kind of amazing but it's the way you folks think. You blame Obama for everything from his inheiritance of the Bush mess to who has the clap but when something negative happens under one of your tax cutting presidents you look through every congressional record technicality and every possible way to blame it on anybody or anything else. Keep it up. You've been found out. Besides losing the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections Romney won two demographics...white men and folks over 65. Since whites will soon be a minority in America and since folks over 65 are dying 100 times faster than those under thirty I'm betting that you've seen the last Republican in the white house for the next few decades....maybe longer than that.
 
How about mandatory reporting of individuals with psychological conditions that prohibit the owning of firearms?

That is the biggest problem with the system now. Both this guy and the Aurora shooter (as well as the Sandy Hook) shooter all had psychological problems, and either guns in their household or were allowed to purchase guns. And because nothing of their background was in any kind of system they could not be stopped.

Jared Lee Loughner, as well
 
Posted by Oozlefinch

"How about mandatory reporting of individuals with psychological conditions that prohibit the owning of firearms?

That is the biggest problem with the system now. Both this guy and the Aurora shooter (as well as the Sandy Hook) shooter all had psychological problems, and either guns in their household or were allowed to purchase guns. And because nothing of their background was in any kind of system they could not be stopped."



If the weapons weren't for sale they would have been stopped. The idea of military styled assault weapons being in the hands of every kooky son-of-a-bitch in the country is asinine. When a guy can drop 300 rounds(10 30 clips) and a semi automatic rifle into some kind of fanny pack or book sack and proceed on the streets unnoticed and commit mass murder there's something really bad going on. ***Only In America***
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom