Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

If only anyone in the Navy had a gun...Follow

#52 Sep 17 2013 at 2:41 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
I still stand by my point.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#53 Sep 17 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
You answered your own question. Just because he's on a military site does not mean the civilian gets access to the military's gear. Most likely it was issued by the company the guard works for since they were able to get approval to arm their employees with such weapons by the facility Commander.


Ah, so the military facility full of trained killers is defended by a police foundations drop-out with a wanna-be assault rifle :D, or not as the case may be but still funny that the military farms out their facility security.
#54 Sep 17 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
You answered your own question. Just because he's on a military site does not mean the civilian gets access to the military's gear. Most likely it was issued by the company the guard works for since they were able to get approval to arm their employees with such weapons by the facility Commander.


Ah, so the military facility full of trained killers is defended by a police foundations drop-out with a wanna-be assault rifle :D, or not as the case may be but still funny that the military farms out their facility security.


The basic security on APG is now run by a Civilian Police Force that reports to the Base Commander or whoever is in charge of that department, so yeah it is.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#55 Sep 17 2013 at 2:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Just to note, there were three weapons found and none were an AR15. A shotgun and two handguns. My guess is that someone saw the barrel of the shotgun from a distance after the first shot or two and just jumped to that conclusion since that's the go-to weapon to panic about.


Or someone saw a security officer running around with one (they were carrying AR-15s). Initially, the news was reporting up to 3 shooters so we know that some of the early witnesses were reporting pretty much anyone they saw with a firearm as a potential shooter. That and news reports in the first 24 hours of an event like this are usually full of inaccuracies precisely because anyone who actually saw anything directly is the police or are talking to the police during the time period when the media is frantically looking around for any random person who can tell them something.

It looks like the guy went in with a shotgun, shot a couple security guards at the entry to the building, then took their handguns and proceeded to go through the building shooting people. So kinda hard to argue that any proposed gun control could have stopped this. Shotguns aren't typically even on the radar for gun control, and this guy was already breaking several existing laws carrying it around (and of course shooting people with it). So we're once again in "unless you're willing to ban and seize every single firearm in the country, gun control wont stop this sort of thing" territory.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Sep 17 2013 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
gbaji wrote:
so we know that some of the early witnesses were reporting pretty much anyone they saw with a firearm as a potential shooter


We should totally give all staff members in schools guns.
#57 Sep 17 2013 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Yodabunny wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
You answered your own question. Just because he's on a military site does not mean the civilian gets access to the military's gear. Most likely it was issued by the company the guard works for since they were able to get approval to arm their employees with such weapons by the facility Commander.


Ah, so the military facility full of trained killers is defended by a police foundations drop-out with a wanna-be assault rifle :D, or not as the case may be but still funny that the military farms out their facility security.


It's not as crazy as it sounds. After all, the military is trained for combat, not as police or security. People tend to get their knickers in a twist when security on a domestic military base react to a criminal act with deadly force when the situation doesn't call for it. Events that do call for it are fortunately rare, so it's often better to have the rent-a-cop.
#58 Sep 17 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So we're once again in "unless you're willing to ban and seize every single firearm in the country, gun control wont stop this sort of thing" territory.
We're actually at a "stop putting idiots in charge of gate security" territory at the moment.
HeRunsWithScissors wrote:
After all, the military is trained for combat, not as police or security.
Except for Military Police, who actually are trained for combat, police, and security details.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Sep 17 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
HeRunsWithScissors wrote:
It's not as crazy as it sounds. After all, the military is trained for combat, not as police or security. People tend to get their knickers in a twist when security on a domestic military base react to a criminal act with deadly force when the situation doesn't call for it. Events that do call for it are fortunately rare, so it's often better to have the rent-a-cop.


I don't actually disagree with it, it's just funny to think about. On a military base full of unarmed people there is no reason to have armed military policing the halls and rent-a-cops are cheaper to maintain, I get it.
#60 Sep 17 2013 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
HeRunsWithScissors wrote:
It's not as crazy as it sounds. After all, the military is trained for combat, not as police or security.
Except for the whole Military Police section of the military...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#61 Sep 17 2013 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
Just to note, there were three weapons found and none were an AR15. A shotgun and two handguns. My guess is that someone saw the barrel of the shotgun from a distance after the first shot or two and just jumped to that conclusion since that's the go-to weapon to panic about.


I stand corrected. Earlier reports included an AR-15. It does appear that he started with the shotgun only, and that the handguns that were found were from security guards.

It does seem that he had rented an AR-15 earlier, but that weapon had been returned before this incident. It still makes me wonder how the hell this guy could have passed any kind of background check, assuming one was even performed.
#62 Sep 17 2013 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Meh, it's a domestic base, I'm no US military expert by any stretch but I expect it's full of civilian contractors, military police could be an issue there.
#63 Sep 17 2013 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Meh, it's a domestic base, I'm no US military expert by any stretch but I expect it's full of civilian contractors, military police could be an issue there.
Why? It's a military base and under military law. We use our military police to do just that, police military bases, abroad or domestic.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#64 Sep 17 2013 at 3:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So we're once again in "unless you're willing to ban and seize every single firearm in the country, gun control wont stop this sort of thing" territory.
We're actually at a "stop putting idiots in charge of gate security" territory at the moment.


Technically, it wasn't guards at the gate, but guards inside the building itself. Real problem was that this guy should never have had a job in that position in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Sep 17 2013 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It does seem that he had rented an AR-15 earlier, but that weapon had been returned before this incident. It still makes me wonder how the hell this guy could have passed any kind of background check, assuming one was even performed.

One was almost certainly performed. Security clearance largely means "no criminal record" for 99% of contractors. It's just minimal due diligence. Which, honestly, is how it should be. Spending a bunch of money to make sure your janitor is completely sane and has no potential life issues that might cause him stress by interviewing his family and known associates, then polygraphing him semi-annually probably isn't a good solution.

Real problem was that this guy should never have had a job in that position in the first place.

Why? I haven't read the psycho-ballbe guessing columns yet, but did he have a criminal record? Was he part of an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the US Government? Was he black?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#66 Sep 17 2013 at 5:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Real problem was that this guy should never have had a job in that position in the first place.

Why? I haven't read the psycho-ballbe guessing columns yet, but did he have a criminal record? Was he part of an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the US Government? Was he black?


He had several arrests on his record. Two were firearm related. Should have at least raised a red flag. To be fair to the folks checking his background though, it looks as though there were a series of failures to apply rules/law along the way that allowed him to skate by without anything super obvious or sinister. He probably should have been dishonorably discharged from the Navy, but got an honorable one instead (we could have a whole thread just about how this has changed over time). He also should have been charged for one of the gun charges, but it looks like a paperwork ***** up caused it to just get lost somewhere. He shot up the tires of a car and his excuse was that he blacked out and didn't remember doing it. Somehow, he managed to not get charged with any crime.


Point being that the company that did the background check didn't even know about (or didn't reflect in their report) the arrests. They may have only been looking at convictions as well. But that's a pretty **** poor background check IMO. There's also the question of what sort of restrictions should be placed on that kind of employment. Is the only requirement to get a security pass to a military base that you not have a criminal record or being on the state departments watch list? That seems... weak.

Edited, Sep 17th 2013 4:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Sep 17 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
He had several arrests on his record. Two were firearm related. Should have at least raised a red flag.

Really, Comrade? He should be denied work because he was arrested, but not convicted of crimes? When does thoughtcrime enter into it?


To be fair to the folks checking his background though, it looks as though there were a series of failures to apply rules/law along the way that allowed him to skate by without anything super obvious or sinister. He probably should have been dishonorably discharged from the Navy, but got an honorable one instead (we could have a whole thread just about how this has changed over time). He also should have been charged for one of the gun charges, but it looks like a paperwork ***** up caused it to just get lost somewhere. He shot up the tires of a car and his excuse was that he blacked out and didn't remember doing it. Somehow, he managed to not get charged with any crime.


So...no criminal record. Check.


Point being that the company that did the background check didn't even know about (or didn't reflect in their report) the arrests.


Probably shouldn't. Hence our quaint "criminal justice system".


They may have only been looking at convictions as well. But that's a pretty **** poor background check IMO. There's also the question of what sort of restrictions should be placed on that kind of employment. Is the only requirement to get a security pass to a military base that you not have a criminal record or being on the state departments watch list? That seems... weak.


It is. If you want better screening it will cost A LOT MORE. A lot. Many billions. There are an enormous number of government contractors that require security clearance. Guess who lobbies most strongly for it to be and stay weak? Dun dun dun....the GOP. Surprise!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#68 Sep 17 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
They may have only been looking at convictions as well. But that's a pretty **** poor background check IMO. There's also the question of what sort of restrictions should be placed on that kind of employment. Is the only requirement to get a security pass to a military base that you not have a criminal record or being on the state departments watch list? That seems... weak.

It is. If you want better screening it will cost A LOT MORE. A lot. Many billions.


Great. Then we're done, right? We've decided that the cost to put sufficient background checks in place to ensure that mentally disturbed people who hear voices and have black outs and shoot things can't get a security clearance to work at a military base isn't worth it. Pay some of the billions we've saved to the families of the deceased and call it a day then.

Quote:
There are an enormous number of government contractors that require security clearance. Guess who lobbies most strongly for it to be and stay weak? Dun dun dun....the GOP. Surprise!


Um... I'm pretty sure it's the Dems who view government contracts as a form of social welfare Smash.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Sep 18 2013 at 6:10 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Great. Then we're done, right? We've decided that the cost to put sufficient background checks in place to ensure that mentally disturbed people who hear voices and have black outs and shoot things can't get a security clearance to work at a military base isn't worth it.

Well, you know, in an ideal world, we'd have that level of background check applied to people who buy guns, since the number of mass murders by contractors and the number of mass murders by contractors who own guns seems to overlap 100%, that might be a better place to spend the energy. "Guy walks into a bar and kills everyone with a gun" "Well, ****, bars should have better background checks, right? I mean that's the problem"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#70 Sep 18 2013 at 6:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It looks like the guy went in with a shotgun, shot a couple security guards at the entry to the building, then took their handguns and proceeded to go through the building shooting people. So kinda hard to argue that any proposed gun control could have stopped this.

Presumably you're still convinced that armed guards are a great idea though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Sep 18 2013 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Presumably you're still convinced that armed guards are a great idea though.

Did you know there's never been a mass shooting when armed guards were present?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#72 Sep 18 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Makes sense. These armed guards were dead before the shooting was technically "mass".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Sep 18 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Technically, it wasn't guards at the gate, but guards inside the building itself.
I guess the whole letting a shotgun into a gun-free installation wasn't much of a problem afterall. Kind of like installing your car alarm in a random body shop instead of the car itself.

Edited, Sep 18th 2013 12:12pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Sep 18 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Presumably you're still convinced that armed guards are a great idea though.

Did you know there's never been a mass shooting when armed guards were present?

There's never been a mass-shooting when Siberian tigers were present.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#75 Sep 18 2013 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
To be fair to the folks checking his background though, it looks as though there were a series of failures to apply rules/law along the way that allowed him to skate by without anything super obvious or sinister. He probably should have been dishonorably discharged from the Navy, but got an honorable one instead (we could have a whole thread just about how this has changed over time). He also should have been charged for one of the gun charges, but it looks like a paperwork ***** up caused it to just get lost somewhere. He shot up the tires of a car and his excuse was that he blacked out and didn't remember doing it. Somehow, he managed to not get charged with any crime.


Just so we're clear, had he been a Hispanic fellow charged with murder who was arrested then his wife was charged with perjury...he definitely should never be allowed to work with a security clearance, right? I mean the signs would be crystal clear that an unstable fellow like that shouldn't be allowed on base, right?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#76 Sep 18 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Elinda wrote:
There's never been a mass-shooting when Siberian tigers were present.


What about all those Siberian Tiger hunts throughout history?

Background checks on gun ownership are a completely meaningless waste of time, given how easy it is for your average crazy obsessed person to aquire a block of aluminum and a hobby mill / lathe these days. Almost anyone could quickly make a crappy gun that would work well enough to shoot someone with minimal amount of book reading on how to drill holes in metal and a vague idea of what a gun looks like. If we specify the easy availability of replacement gun barrels into the mix, almost anyone could make a somewhat accurate gun that could shoot someone. All adding more background checks does is annoy the people who would follow the law anyways. Someone who is contemplating murder isn't going to be overly concerned with breaking gun aquisition laws. A crazy obsessive person is going to find a way to accomplish their goals one way or another. Should we ban propane tanks and gasolene? Maybe we should ban aluminum so no one can file it into aluminum powder? Of ban fuel oil because someone could make a bomb out of it. Maybe ban containers with lids, or clocks that could be used as detonators?

There will always be people who are willing to make extra money selling weapons off the books. The first question everyone asks me when they hear I have a 3d printer is "can you print a gun?" of course I could, but it would be stupid to do so when I could just go get one that isn't likely to explode and blow my fingers off. I could go order a hunting rifle kit off the internet using a cash prepaid debit card and a PO box under a fake name, and have a mostly assembled rifle in minutes (or revolver kits, etc). Ban those kits in the U.S, I'll just order one from some other country, etc. A firearm is too simple a device to ban. Anyone with a bullet could make a functional zip gun. Everyone gets all hung up over AR-15's and "assult weapons" but almost every single shooting out there involves a handgun or some sort of single shot per trigger pull hunting rifle with a clip. Ban all those and the Criminals will be the only ones who have them. Australia tried it, and the criminal elements in Australia are having a field day over it (not to mention the various poisenous critters that now have no fear of being shot). Instead of gun crime you get mroe stabbings, or bludgeonings, or mass poisenings.

We should ban money, since people use money to buy things that kill other people. Or maybe ban food, because 100% of people who kill other people eat things.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 212 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (212)