Mass Shooting at Washington Navy Yard

[Clinton Huxley]

Well, if you will read the Torygraph.....

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if you will read the Torygraph.....

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/show ... riend.html

[Ian]

Let's see...

He was paranoid, thinking that everyone was going to try to steal his belongings, so he went around packing a .45 everywhere he went.
He had some psychological issues stemming from 9/11/01
he was wackily religious, spending days at a time "meditating" in a Buddhist temple.
He felt he was discriminated against
He felt that he had recently been financially screwed over his contracting job at the end of last year
He had few friends
He felt the Navy didn't treat him right.

But, he played Call of Duty, so that's why he went on this rampage -- that's the headline. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... games.html

Perhaps more restrictive background checks might've helped prevent a guy like that from from being armed the way he was?

Nah, that'd be totalitarianism. Selling guns to the deranged is the price we must pay for freedom, and all that.

[Ian]

Time to reset the clock again..

[tattuchu]

So the shooter "heard voices", I'm reading. Hey, here's an idea: don't listen to them, asswipe.

Obama calls it a "cowardly act". Yeah, people always say that. I guess it makes them feel better because they're absolutely powerless in such a situation so to call the person a coward must make them feel better or something. The shooter may be a lot of things- asshole, douchebag, fucktard, etc -but I don't think coward is one of them. Seems to me it takes a lot of balls to do something like this. That doesn't make it in any way admirable. It's just when I hear someone use the word cowardly to describe something like this, I think to myself, "Oh shut the fuck up, you idiot."

Guy was black. Huh. For whatever reason, you don't see too many black mass murderers.

Oh, and his weapon was purchased legally. Another victory for liberty-loving patriots everywhere.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm surprised the Telegraph hasn't laid the blame on windfarms.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's see...

He was paranoid, thinking that everyone was going to try to steal his belongings, so he went around packing a .45 everywhere he went.
He had some psychological issues stemming from 9/11/01
he was wackily religious, spending days at a time "meditating" in a Buddhist temple.
He felt he was discriminated against
He felt that he had recently been financially screwed over his contracting job at the end of last year
He had few friends
He felt the Navy didn't treat him right.

But, he played Call of Duty, so that's why he went on this rampage -- that's the headline. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... games.html

Perhaps more restrictive background checks might've helped prevent a guy like that from from being armed the way he was?

Nah, that'd be totalitarianism. Selling guns to the deranged is the price we must pay for freedom, and all that.

I have no beef with a background check for handguns. No argument here. We do have to settle on what items in a person's background will disqualify him, though. Remember, discriminating against people with mental disabilities is a no-no these days....

But, I wonder what would have even come up in this guy's background check. He thought people were discriminating against him. He thought people might steal his stuff. He thought he was screwed in his last contracting job. He was otherwise a generally nice guy that people liked, he attended Buddhist religious services weekly, he had no violent history, no felony history, he helped save people on 9/11/01. He liked playing Call of Duty online for long periods of time. Would that be cause to deny someone a gun?

[Clinton Huxley]

Didn't he have previous firearms convictions?

[mistermack]

I'm surprised the Telegraph hasn't laid the blame on windfarms.

Well, it's almost certainly a consequence of global warming. That goes without saying.
And it's bound to have a knock-on effect on house prices here.

If only Diana was still here, he might have had something to live for.
Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Coito ergo sum]

Didn't he have previous firearms convictions?

I hadn't heard that, or I missed that if it was reported. For what?

Serious infractions with a gun ought to disqualify one from ownership, or require training and such, depending on the circumstances.

[Clinton Huxley]

Didn't he have previous firearms convictions?

I hadn't heard that, or I missed that if it was reported. For what?

Serious infractions with a gun ought to disqualify one from ownership, or require training and such, depending on the circumstances.

Just looking it up, he was arrested by police a couple of times for "gun-rage" type incidents but was never convicted. Not quite what I read yesterday. Seems there has been evidence for a while that he was.....err....on the twitchy side though.

[cronus]

Lot's of people hear voices but they don't all go on shooting sprees. Easy to blame voices but if ten percent of the population was doing splatter therapy with their colleagues at work...that'd be a lot of splatter. Something else here? Maybe money issues....I'll go for money issues. Seems the type to get himself into a financial blackhole with no way out.

[Clinton Huxley]

Here you go, from the Torygraph

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peter ... -gun-laws/

[Coito ergo sum]

Here you go, from the Torygraph

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peter ... -gun-laws/

Well, if the telegraph says that US gun laws are notoriously lax, then the opposite must be true.

[Clinton Huxley]

Here you go, from the Torygraph

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peter ... -gun-laws/

Well, if the telegraph says that US gun laws are notoriously lax, then the opposite must be true.

I don't think even telegraph commentators are loony enough to argue otherwise. There's mad and then there's American gun law......