NationStates

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:26 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Neu California wrote:
Because the gunman's target was in Washington DC, perhaps (speculation, of course, but so is your own point)? Seems more logical than what each place's gun laws are, IMO.

No matter the gun laws, crime will still remain the same. For example: On another thread in NSG someone claimed that the reason for the high gun crime rate in Chicago was because criminals are buying them from neighboring states, but if thats the case then why do the neighboring states have a lower gun crime rate?

And what does this have to do with your initial inquiry about why this particular shooting occurred in DC and not in a neighboring state?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:26 pm**

Another Mass Shooting!

Obama taking our guns,NWO,Illuminati!

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:27 pm**

Minarchist States wrote:
Tule wrote:
America has actually had remarkably few mass shootings this year.

Over a period of 8 1/2 months there have been 3 mass shootings with a combined death toll of 15.

15 people died! Quick, ban the guns!

15 people died! Quick, repeal all gun control laws!

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:41 pm**

Kouralia wrote:
Uberman wrote:Damnn... Seems like a terrorist attack.

No it doesn't.

Why else target the Washington Naval Yard. It's not exactly a soft target like a school. Usually spree shooters without motive target places like schools or movie theaters.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:43 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
But it does defeat the myth that it prevents gun violence.

Find me anyone of consequence claiming that DC's laws would prevent all gun violence.

Chernoslavia wrote:
1. And who pays for those guns?

The Navy.
That's right. The people do, including me. And we supply them to the Navy, so technically they belong to We the people.

No, they belong to the Navy.

2. Also, they should let them carry their weapons on base, they are in the NAVY afterall.

You get that the Washington Navy Yard is basically the Pentagon of the Navy, yeah? Besides which, I seem to recall that sailors aren't even routinely armed when at sea, why would they be armed in an admin building?
Look what just happened, if they were armed they would've taken these perps down and saved some lives.

If who were armed? The civilians working there?

1. They are in the possession of the Navy, they belong to We the people. Who is the Navy? We the people. Its our money thats being used to buy them. They might sell them back into the civilian market as surplus but it doesnt mean that the navy has owned them. Does this mean a tax payer can just go in there and take an M16 from the armory like he owns the gun? No. The military doesn't mess around with tax dollars. That is our money being used to supply them. So no, the Navy themselves don't pay for them.

2. Why? Because a group of guys went in and started shooting people that's why.

3. Mainly I was talking about arming the Navy personnel, but yeah I guess the civilians should too if they want. Last time I checked they weren't taking the bad guys out until people were getting killed.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:43 pm**

Uberman wrote:
Kouralia wrote:No it doesn't.

Why else target the Washington Naval Yard. It's not exactly a soft target like a school. Usually spree shooters without motive target places like schools or movie theaters.

The current motive is 'he got fired', I believe.

Terrorism is basically the act of waging war through asymmetric means whose primary aim is to cause/inspire fear (terror) and demoralisation in the enemy,

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:45 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Find me anyone of consequence claiming that DC's laws would prevent all gun violence.

The Navy.

No, they belong to the Navy.

You get that the Washington Navy Yard is basically the Pentagon of the Navy, yeah? Besides which, I seem to recall that sailors aren't even routinely armed when at sea, why would they be armed in an admin building?

If who were armed? The civilians working there?

1. They are in the possession of the Navy, they belong to We the people. Who is the Navy? We the people. Its our money thats being used to buy them. They might sell them back into the civilian market as surplus but it doesnt mean that the navy has owned them. Does this mean a tax payer can just go in there and take an M16 from the armory like he owns the gun? No. The military doesn't mess around with tax dollars. That is our money being used to supply them.

That makes as much sense as saying a company owns its employees' houses, because the money to pay for them comes from the company.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:46 pm**

Very sad to hear the news.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:46 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Minarchist States wrote:15 people died! Quick, ban the guns!

15 people died! Quick, repeal all gun control laws!

Why not just arm the Navy troops? Though, some repealing of gun bans would be nice too.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:47 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Ifreann wrote:15 people died! Quick, repeal all gun control laws!

Why not just arm the Navy troops? Though, some repealing of gun bans would be nice too.

Why have an uncoordinated mass of people running about on an administrative base in the middle of the most powerful nation on the planet, just on the off chance that someone will use someone else's ID to get in and start shooting people.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:48 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
1. They are in the possession of the Navy, they belong to We the people. Who is the Navy? We the people. Its our money thats being used to buy them. They might sell them back into the civilian market as surplus but it doesnt mean that the navy has owned them. Does this mean a tax payer can just go in there and take an M16 from the armory like he owns the gun? No. The military doesn't mess around with tax dollars. That is our money being used to supply them.

That makes as much sense as saying a company owns its employees' houses, because the money to pay for them comes from the company.

Yeah it certainly isn't our tax dollars. :roll:

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:48 pm**

Kouralia wrote:
Uberman wrote:
Why else target the Washington Naval Yard. It's not exactly a soft target like a school. Usually spree shooters without motive target places like schools or movie theaters.

The current motive is 'he got fired', I believe.

Terrorism is basically the act of waging war through asymmetric means whose primary aim is to cause/inspire fear (terror) and demoralisation in the enemy,

Actually, the "fired employee" hypothesis has been proven false. Though they IDed the dead shooter.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:49 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:That makes as much sense as saying a company owns its employees' houses, because the money to pay for them comes from the company.

Yeah it certainly isn't our tax dollars.

When you pay taxes, the money ceases to be yours.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:51 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
Yeah it certainly isn't our tax dollars.

When you pay taxes, the money ceases to be yours.

Really, it belongs to everyone whom those dollars benefit.

If you think about it, we're all technically trillionaires. :lol:

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:51 pm**

L Ron Cupboard wrote:Gibbs fail.

I love you

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:54 pm**

Hopefully this is a nice clean act of war, like Fort Hood, and no-one died who didn't sign up for it.

I mean, no-one deserves to be murdered and all deaths are tragedies. But it's better than volunteer military personnel are killed than anyone else. That's the point of having a military isn't it? And the only reason we honor military service?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:54 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Ifreann wrote:That a ban on assault weapons can't possibly be relevant to the topic at hand when we don't know what weapons were used.

But it does defeat the myth that it prevents gun violence. Handguns are more commonly used in homicide than rifles.

We do not know their motivation if they circumvented a criminal background check we know nothing.

It is hard to even speculate what laws would or would not be effective if we have no idea what happened and who the suspects are.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:57 pm**

Why am I not surprised?

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:00 pm**

The Rich Port wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:When you pay taxes, the money ceases to be yours.

Really, it belongs to everyone whom those dollars benefit.

If you think about it, we're all technically trillionaires.

Never mind the money, I own millions of hectares of national parks! I'm a gamekeeper, also I have the oldest living thing on earth ... it's a tree.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:01 pm**

Chernoslavia wrote:
Neu California wrote:
Because the gunman's target was in Washington DC, perhaps (speculation, of course, but so is your own point)? Seems more logical than what each place's gun laws are, IMO.

No matter the gun laws, crime will still remain the same. For example: On another thread in NSG someone claimed that the reason for the high gun crime rate in Chicago was because criminals are buying them from neighboring states, but if thats the case then why do the neighboring states have a lower gun crime rate?

i think you'll find gary has a bit of a crime problem...

but also, because cities is where the money is, cities is where the gangs is, and cities is where the lead pollution is. chicago in particular is subject to the triple hit of being the big city of the entire center of the country, an on-going multi-fronted gang war, and easy access to guns from "we don't need no stinking gun control" indiana (and mississippi, by way of family connections).

but at the state level, weak gun laws are definitely correlated with worse gun violence.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:01 pm**

People are surprised a shooting happened? :eyebrow:

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:04 pm**

Thought upon reading thread title: A NCIS Roll play
Thought at first post: Fuck
Thought at Farn: *Gibbsslap* Bad Probi

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:04 pm**

Ailiailia wrote:I have the oldest living thing on earth ... it's a tree.

I thought it was your significant other.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:05 pm**

Well, this sucks. I guess now we have to spend the next few months listening to politicians debate how they're going to deprive us of liberty for our own protection. Goodbye Bill of Rights, you shall be missed.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:06 pm**

Independent Republic of Not My Problem wrote:Well, this sucks. I guess now we have to spend the next few months listening to politicians debate how they're going to deprive us of liberty for our own protection. Goodbye Bill of Rights, you shall be missed.

That seems a bit of an overreaction.

NationStates

Shooting at Washington Navy Yard