NationStates

Gauthier wrote:

Ifreann wrote:He said without knowing what weapons were used in this incident.

I mean, it's not like the shooter(s) was unable to buy banned weapons outside of DC if any were used. I mean, how implausible is that?

So far witnessess say one of the shooters was carrying a handgun. Also, if the law worked to stop them from getting a semi auto rifle in DC but didnt stop them from bringing them into DC, how does that make sense?

It doesn't.

Ifreann wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Agreed, its time we learned that DC's assault weapons ban didnt work.

He said without knowing what weapons were used in this incident.

Your point?

Chernoslavia wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
I mean, it's not like the shooter(s) was unable to buy banned weapons outside of DC if any were used. I mean, how implausible is that?

So far witnessess say one of the shooters was carrying a handgun. Also, if the law worked to stop them from getting a semi auto rifle in DC but didnt stop them from bringing them into DC, how does that make sense?

It doesn't.

Because hey, DC is enclosed by borders and checkpoints and every single incoming vehicle is stopped and searched for illegal weapons.

Don't worry guys, it's k, NCIS is on the scene.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:He said without knowing what weapons were used in this incident.

Your point?

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.

Ifreann wrote:

Union of Confederate Socialist Republics wrote:if those people at the Yard would have been carrying their own arms this wouldn't happen yessir

The US Navy only likes guns when they're attached to boats.

If I'm not mistaking they aren't allowed to have the firearms with them. Only the MPs guarding the gates.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The US Navy only likes guns when they're attached to boats.

If I'm not mistaking they aren't allowed to have the firearms with them. Only the MPs guarding the gates.

Of course not. They're the Navy's guns, they don't let people just carry them around.

Jesus Christ, my dad used to work there.

Vitaphone Racing wrote:These mass shootings are getting more and more frequent by the year it seems.

They arent. Society is growing.more integrated so we are more aware of shootings as they happen.

Damnn... Seems like a terrorist attack.

Ifreann wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:Your point?

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.

hope the injured are doing okay...

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

No it doesn't.

Souriya Al-Assad wrote:
There is certainly an abnormal pattern in all of these. Not to mention the enigma surrounding the 'suspects' of the Boston bombings.

Adding to your list, should be Woolwich.

On another note, these are certainly odd, some have raised the idea of false flags on alternative media, others have pointed a different possibility: http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/switzerl ... ment-74262
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1694.htm

I was talking about just the US. I'm sure there are a great many shootings in other countries that I missed, but the factors contributing to mass shootings are different in different countries.

Ifreann wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
If I'm not mistaking they aren't allowed to have the firearms with them. Only the MPs guarding the gates.

Of course not. They're the Navy's guns, they don't let people just carry them around.

1. And who pays for those guns? That's right. The people do, including me. And we supply them to the Navy, so technically they belong to We the people.

2. Also, they should let them carry their weapons on base, they are in the NAVY afterall. Look what just happened, if they were armed they would've taken these perps down and saved some lives.

Tule wrote:

Vitaphone Racing wrote:These mass shootings are getting more and more frequent by the year it seems.

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!

Gauthier wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
So far witnessess say one of the shooters was carrying a handgun. Also, if the law worked to stop them from getting a semi auto rifle in DC but didnt stop them from bringing them into DC, how does that make sense?

It doesn't.

Because hey, DC is enclosed by borders and checkpoints and every single incoming vehicle is stopped and searched for illegal weapons.

Then how come the shootings don't happen in those neighboring states? Exactly.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Of course not. They're the Navy's guns, they don't let people just carry them around.

1. And who pays for those guns? That's right. The people do, including me. And we supply them to the Navy, so technically they belong to We the people.

2. Also, they should let them carry their weapons on base, they are in the NAVY afterall. Look what just happened, if they were armed they would've taken these perps down and saved some lives.

>People running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms'
>Best solution is to have more people running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms'

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!

None of those people should have died.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
Because hey, DC is enclosed by borders and checkpoints and every single incoming vehicle is stopped and searched for illegal weapons.

Then how come the shooting didn't happen in those neighboring states? Exactly.

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.

Kouralia wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
1. And who pays for those guns? That's right. The people do, including me. And we supply them to the Navy, so technically they belong to We the people.

2. Also, they should let them carry their weapons on base, they are in the NAVY afterall. Look what just happened, if they were armed they would've taken these perps down and saved some lives.

>People running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms'
>Best solution is to have more people running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms'

Here's something that makes more sense.

>People running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms' unarmed.
>Best solution is to have people running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms' armed.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Kouralia wrote:>People running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms'
>Best solution is to have more people running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms'

Here's something that makes more sense.

>People running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms' unarmed.
>Best solution is to have people running about on a naval base in 'military-style uniforms' armed.

So, you're going to have literally hundreds of people who are in no/minimal way in communication, wearing the same (probably) uniform as their assailants and all armed, running around in an uncoordinated manner shooting people?

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.

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

---

Chernoslavia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Of course not. They're the Navy's guns, they don't let people just carry them around.

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?

Neu California wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Then how come the shooting didn't happen in those neighboring states? Exactly.

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?

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/379683635219410945

Apparently, the dead shooter has been identified as a 34 year old from Fort Worth, Texas.

It's nice to see that people were using this for a punchline within 2 minutes of the news coming out.