Mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard

[cartman]

One shooter dead, two others at large. At least 7 people reported killed.

At least 7 dead in Navy Yard shooting. Two possible suspects at large - The Washington Post

[Qwikshot]

Now it's 12 dead

[claphamsa]

I had fun trying to track down everyone I know who works there. (none were on site today).

[Qwikshot]

I know people are probably numb to this...

Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine

[Kodos]

That's a whole lot of lives ruined.

[Lathum]

It is really sad how desensitized we have become to gun violence. Sandy Hook was different because it was children and horrific on an uncomprehendable level.

A few years ago this thread would have been at 5-6 pages by now instead of 4 posts.

[molson]

It's definitely a lot, but it seems like Slate and other media outlets DESPERATELY wish violent crime was actually rising in this country, but since it's actually fallen off a cliff in the last few decades, they have to rile people up in different ways - like maybe depicting every individual murder victim in a country of 300 million by depicting them as a little graphic person. In a spiritual and reflective way, it's pretty meaningful and intense to give all those victims that kind of representation (maybe they should do the same thing for car accident victims to put it into context though), but in a journalistic way, it's just misleading. The story they're telling is that U.S. violent crime is out of control since Newtown, but that's not true, so they just put together a fluff piece/memorial, but tried to make it look "sciencey" by talking about "data" and inviting people to to utilize the data for their own "projects."

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by molson

It's definitely a lot, but it seems like Slate and other media outlets DESPERATELY wish violent crime was actually rising in this country, but since it's actually fallen off a cliff in the last few decades, they have to rile people up in different ways - like maybe depicting every individual murder victim in a country of 300 million by depicting them as a little graphic person. In a spiritual and reflective way, it's pretty meaningful and intense to give all those victims that kind of representation (maybe they should do the same thing for car accident victims to put it into context though), but in a journalistic way, it's just misleading. The story they're telling is that U.S. violent crime is out of control since Newtown, but that's not true, so they just put together a fluff piece/memorial, but tried to make it look "sciencey" by talking about "data" and inviting people to to utilize the data for their own "projects."

I don't think it pits gun violence as out of control, I think it's a great visual to represent the victims. I'm not saying I have a solution, but I can see the scope instead of a few soundbites from the regional media when something goes down in my area or national news when there is a mass shooting.

Comparing car accidents is poor, but I would like to see maybe a comparison to other types of murder (not for morbidity sake but to understand how extreme gun violence is). Do we compare to any other 1st world nation in the number of gun deaths? Do we compare to other nations with the same amount of populace?

A buddy of mine was in safety lock down at the shipyard, he made it out, he teleconferenced rather than go to the meeting in person (where the shooting occurred) and for that he escaped harm.

Doesn't it bother people that this happened at a secure site (a navy facility no less)? Doesn't it bother people this guy after several reported gun incidents before (I believe Texas and Washington State) still was able to conceal and carry?!?

Victims need to be remembered, Sandy Hook should have been a watershed, sadly it was a waterloo I think.

[Qwikshot]

I'm really not trying to stir debate, this is a message board no more no less of many differing opinions but it seems that after Sandy Hook there has been no further debate or discussion, and I don't think there ever will be.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It is really sad how desensitized we have become to gun violence. Sandy Hook was different because it was children and horrific on an uncomprehendable level.

A few years ago this thread would have been at 5-6 pages by now instead of 4 posts.

I agree, I know I feel numbed to events like this where now it feels more like "oh, another" rather than, "oh my god!" Some people have a personal connection to one of these events more than another, but outside of that, and outside of people excited to argue about this shit, I think most people feel a bit numbed.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

It's definitely a lot, but it seems like Slate and other media outlets DESPERATELY wish violent crime was actually rising in this country, but since it's actually fallen off a cliff in the last few decades, they have to rile people up in different ways - like maybe depicting every individual murder victim in a country of 300 million by depicting them as a little graphic person. In a spiritual and reflective way, it's pretty meaningful and intense to give all those victims that kind of representation (maybe they should do the same thing for car accident victims to put it into context though), but in a journalistic way, it's just misleading. The story they're telling is that U.S. violent crime is out of control since Newtown, but that's not true, so they just put together a fluff piece/memorial, but tried to make it look "sciencey" by talking about "data" and inviting people to to utilize the data for their own "projects."

Can things both be improving and still have a long way to go? Even if it's better, as Kodos said "That's a whole lot of lives ruined."

SI

[molson]

It's also interesting that this Slate piece and others like it chose to group all violent crime together and try to trick the reader into believing that such crime is increasing, but not to look at this one particular type of violent act which may actually have some more prevalence in recent years - the "crazy guy shoots up the place" crimes.

It's obvious why they do that. The gun control debate his hotter and angrier and drives more web traffic than any mental health debate. And the gun control debate has more of a cleaner left/right divide, which is great for driving interest, (but not so great for ever actually getting anything done in a legislative and policy sense.) With mental health, it's a lot more gray, and it's not so clear what side you're supposed to be on if you're "left" or "right". So that debate is a lot less angry and people maybe don't have their heels dug in as much, which of course, creates the potential for actual compromise and solutions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Can things both be improving and still have a long way to go? Even if it's better, as Kodos said "That's a whole lot of lives ruined."

SI

Sure, but this Slate piece and the similar rhetoric aren't telling the story, "we're going in the right direction here, but we could be doing even better if we did X." They're telling the story, "since Sandy Hook, violent crime has dramatically increased to the point where we're all numb to it." The dramatically decreasing violent crime rate is an elephant in the room that really makes the story they want to tell difficult to tell.

And if you want to see fewer guns on the streets and stricter gun control regulation, you shouldn't like this approach to that goal. Because it's accomplished jack shit. It's actually worse than that - with this kind of rhetoric and backlash - gun sales have gone through the roof, and there's been almost zero actual new regulations passed. The Obama administration, and media hysteria over out-of-control violent crime (which isn't even close to reality) has led to an incredible boom for the gun industry and the NRA. (Not that it's Obama's fault at all, the gun lobby and the gun industry just capitalized on paranoia that Obama was going to "take our guns", which people believed because of the hysteria and media rhetoric.)

I just think there's more honest stories to tell. We've won so many battles to bring violent crime rates down. There's so many factors at play there. It's been a real success story. The one part of that, the ONE potential "solution" to crime where we've made almost zero progress, gun control, is the one that people want to be obsessed with. And since we've failed at that, people want to look at the whole thing as a failure - it's like we hate guns even more than we hate crime. I'm not even saying we should give up on gun control. But maybe, just maybe, access to guns isn't the only factor that determines a place's violent crime rate. Maybe it isn't even in the top 100. Not a lot is written about recognizing and identifying the factors which have actually moved us in a positive direction. Instead, violent crime is usually portrayed as increasing and being out of control - I think to line things up for the gun control debate, which the left wants because they're passionate about it, and the right wants because it's great for gun business. (Certainly, what the debate doesn't do, is change gun control laws and impact crime)

[revrew]

Originally Posted by molson

It's like we hate guns even more than we hate crime.

And THIS, I believe, is a significant factor in why we culturally make so little progress toward solutions.

Insert the word "gun," and rhetoric gets dialed up so fast, both "sides" talk right past each other instead of seeking solutions they could actually agree on. I think the NRA crowd would be more receptive to honest solutions, if the gun-control crowd didn't throw out wild, fear-laced and unreasonable statements about guns that drip emotion but lack logic. AND, the opposite direction as well.

There's 3 things I think both "sides" could agree on:
1. We need to reduce the violence level within people themselves
2. We need to reduce violent people's access to weapons that can kill many people
3. We need to reduce the amount of damage violent people can inflict when they DO get their hands on lethal weapons

The NRA jumps up and down on point 3; the gun-control crowd jumps up and down on point 2. I'd like to see both sides stop jumping up and down and discuss all 3.

[lungs]

Just curious, are the total cases of violent crime also dropping? IE: is the reduction in the rate outpacing population growth?

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

Just curious, are the total cases of violent crime also dropping? IE: is the reduction in the rate outpacing population growth?

It's decreased as a flat number, even without taking into account population growth.

In the last 3 years there have been between 14,000 and 15,000 U.S. murders a year. (the chart below only goes through 2011, but 2012 had 14,827 murders, for a rate of 4.7 per 100,000) The peak was 24,500 in 1993, and the peak rate was 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980.

Until 2010-2012, we hadn't been below 15,000 U.S. murders since 1969, and we hadn't been below a rate of 4.9 murders per 100,000 since 1963.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2011

[molson]

Dola:

There's no real consensus as to the reasons beyond the drop-off, but my guess is: 1. The internet (people are online instead of hanging out on street corners), 2. Aggressive inner-city policing (NYC has set the model for this - and I'm not talking about the racial profiling part), 3. increased law enforcement funding (Bill Clinton was a big believer in this, and he was actually able to execute his vision, because no Republican wants to be seen as being "soft on crime" - the violent crime decreases during his tenure speak for themselves); 4. longer prison sentences for violent criminals; 5. Greater awareness of the dynamics of domestic violence, and earlier law enforcement intervention into dangerous relationships.....there's also been huge changes in the way prisoners are managed, in that there's much more treatment available in prison, and much more community-based diversion programs for drug addicts where they're not simply warehoused - but I don't have that on my list yet because we haven't seen a huge drop in recidivism rates. But I think those efforts will show results soon.

Edit: And of course, the type of murder that has kind of shocked the national conscious in recent years - the "crazy guy shooting everyone" murders, isn't really addressed effectively by those 5 mitigating factors above. It's something very different than the street and domestic violence type-murders that those efforts have so successful in getting under control. So to me, that's the story.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

It's decreased as a flat number, even without taking into account population growth.

In the last 3 years there have been between 14,000 and 15,000 U.S. murders a year. (the chart below only goes through 2011, but 2012 had 14,827 murders, for a rate of 4.7 per 100,000) The peak was 24,500 in 1993, and the peak rate was 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980.

Until 2010-2012, we hadn't been below 15,000 U.S. murders since 1969, and we hadn't been below a rate of 4.9 murders per 100,000 since 1963.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2011

I wonder what these would look like if they were broken down by race of the victim, since that would put the focus on the subset that most people care about.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Dola:

There's no real consensus as to the reasons beyond the drop-off, but my guess is: 1. The internet (people are online instead of hanging out on street corners), 2. Aggressive inner-city policing (NYC has set the model for this - and I'm not talking about the racial profiling part), 3. increased law enforcement funding (Bill Clinton was a big believer in this, and he was actually able to execute his vision, because no Republican wants to be seen as being "soft on crime" - the violent crime decreases during his tenure speak for themselves); 4. longer prison sentences for violent criminals; 5. Greater awareness of the dynamics of domestic violence, and earlier law enforcement intervention into dangerous relationships.....there's also been huge changes in the way prisoners are managed, in that there's much more treatment available in prison, and much more community-based diversion programs for drug addicts where they're not simply warehoused - but I don't have that on my list yet because we haven't seen a huge drop in recidivism rates. But I think those efforts will show results soon.

Edit: And of course, the type of murder that has kind of shocked the national conscious in recent years - the "crazy guy shooting everyone" murders, isn't really addressed effectively by those 5 mitigating factors above. It's something very different than the street and domestic violence type-murders that those efforts have so successful in getting under control. So to me, that's the story.

Reduced lead levels is the best explanation I've seen. It helps explain why crime is down in all countries that have banned leaded gasoline.

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...-link-gasoline

[molson]

Oh ya, I forgot about that one. I haven't read much about it but the lead thing is very interesting.

[sterlingice]

Freakonomics attributed it to abortion (tho I had some issues with their methods)

SI

[gstelmack]

You had a military contractor, member of the naval reserve, with a security clearance, shoot up a guarded (although everyone is still trying to figure out what that means precisely) military installation - if this isn't the poster child for "no amount of gun control will stop these mass shooting incidents" I don't know what is...

[chadritt]

He was also crazy, as in he was hearing voices,and was being treated for medical issues including paranoia and a sleep disorder. So I'm thinking legislation could've helped although he should probably have just been deemed unfit which would've rescinded his clearance.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You had a military contractor, member of the naval reserve, with a security clearance, shoot up a guarded (although everyone is still trying to figure out what that means precisely) military installation - if this isn't the poster child for "no amount of gun control will stop these mass shooting incidents" I don't know what is...

I can think of some amount. But unfortunately any amount brought up for discussion is almost immediately drowned out by the cries of "they are coming for our guns".

[bhlloy]

Yeah I see exactly the opposite - he shouldn't have been given security clearance, he should have been dishonorably discharged which would have precluded him being given any kind of clearance by default and he should have been declared unfit to own a gun. I think rev had it right above - there's multiple causes of these kind of issues and depending on what side you are on you only get one side of the argument. But at this point it seems like a perfect storm of negligence that allowed this to happen (assuming half of what the media is reporting is accurate, which is always a stretch)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Yeah I see exactly the opposite - he shouldn't have been given security clearance, he should have been dishonorably discharged which would have precluded him being given any kind of clearance by default and he should have been declared unfit to own a gun. I think rev had it right above - there's multiple causes of these kind of issues and depending on what side you are on you only get one side of the argument. But at this point it seems like a perfect storm of negligence that allowed this to happen (assuming half of what the media is reporting is accurate, which is always a stretch)

Is it really a "perfect storm" if it's likely to be occurring all over the place? I suspect there are hundreds if not thousands of people who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun and in the wrong place. I think we use the term "perfect storm" much too liberally to describe something entirely preventable.

SI

[molson]

It's tricky because if you take away someone's security clearance (and basically fire them), because they're getting mental health treatment, you discourage people from seeking mental health treatment. (Same as if you take away someone's gun rights if they get mental health treatment). I know that was an issue they were concerned about. The military only did something wrong if they actually violated some protocol they have. And I'm thinking if this guy was willing to do this, he probably would have just shot up a less-secure military or government office if need be.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

It's also interesting that this Slate piece and others like it chose to group all violent crime together and try to trick the reader into believing that such crime is increasing, but not to look at this one particular type of violent act which may actually have some more prevalence in recent years - the "crazy guy shoots up the place" crimes.

It's obvious why they do that. The gun control debate his hotter and angrier and drives more web traffic than any mental health debate. And the gun control debate has more of a cleaner left/right divide, which is great for driving interest, (but not so great for ever actually getting anything done in a legislative and policy sense.) With mental health, it's a lot more gray, and it's not so clear what side you're supposed to be on if you're "left" or "right". So that debate is a lot less angry and people maybe don't have their heels dug in as much, which of course, creates the potential for actual compromise and solutions.

There are quite a few theories being thrown around that the overweight are about to become the next "pariah class" in America. I think we're doing a good job to push "mentally ill" give it a run for the money. We've gone from the 70s and the "One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest" fear of "you could be pretty normal but have your life ruined" to making mental illness a lot more accepted in society. This has the real upshoot of getting a lot of treatment, be it therapy or drugs or whatnot, to those who would otherwise be afraid to come forward for fear of losing rights, livelihood, etc.

Now that the NRA has decided this is a perfect boogeyman and scapegoat because, well, frankly, "stop crazy people from getting guns" is pretty much impossible (and there are some huge flaws in that reasoning as everyone who commits murder doesn't fit the "classic" definition of "crazy"). We've come a lot way from sanatorium and asylum prisons as recently as a couple of decades ago. But I think the pendulum will start to swing back the other way now.

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

It's tricky because if you take away someone's security clearance (and basically fire them), because they're getting mental health treatment, you discourage people from seeking mental health treatment. (Same as if you take away someone's gun rights if they get mental health treatment). I know that was an issue they were concerned about. The military only did something wrong if they actually violated some protocol they have. And I'm thinking if this guy was willing to do this, he probably would have just shot up a less-secure military or government office if need be.

Its worth considering that a LOT of people get mental health treatment at some point in their lives.

In the United States, 30 to 40 percent of the population experience mental health and substance use disorders at some point in their lives, with about half of these people (15% to 20%) requiring professional care each year

Taken from: Link

As such you'd have to be really careful with regards to what was considered serious enough to remove someones rights with regards to mental health issues (ie. the type of disorder/issue) ...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

It's tricky because if you take away someone's security clearance (and basically fire them), because they're getting mental health treatment, you discourage people from seeking mental health treatment.

Interestingly, this is one of the central plot points in the show "Homeland".

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

We've come a lot way from sanatorium and asylum prisons as recently as a couple of decades ago. But I think the pendulum will start to swing back the other way now.

SI

Ya, I think you're right.

Remember this lady? She had a blog post entitled, "I am Adam Lanza's mother" a little after Sandy Hook, talking about her own son's mental health issues, and how he had acted out violently.

For families in crisis, a Boise mom urges speaking out | Boise, Garden City, Mountain Home | Idahostatesman.com

The title says she's "working to end stigma of mental illness". But I'm not sure that's either what she's trying to do, or what we should do. Don't we WANT to stigmatize mental illness, in that we want people who are mentally ill to have FEWER rights (to firearms), fewer security clearances, and in some cases, even fewer rights to live free in society? Obviously, we don't want to go too far in that direction. We don't want people disqualified from civil service jobs if they see a therapist and get treated for depression. But I agree that society maybe thinks we're too far in the other direction right now.

[sterlingice]

I'm not sure society really things we're too far the other direction. But I do think that if you give society a convenient and easy scapegoat, they love to take it.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chadritt

So I'm thinking legislation could've helped although he should probably have just been deemed unfit which would've rescinded his clearance.

While there's the August 7th "hearing voices" call to the cops -- which they apparently reported to his employers -- I'm thinking a lot of what could have led to his clearance being rescinded may have been covered under HIPAA, in which case we also need to look more closely at what is being sacrificed in the name of "privacy".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

It's tricky because if you take away someone's security clearance (and basically fire them), because they're getting mental health treatment, you discourage people from seeking mental health treatment. (Same as if you take away someone's gun rights if they get mental health treatment). I know that was an issue they were concerned about. The military only did something wrong if they actually violated some protocol they have. And I'm thinking if this guy was willing to do this, he probably would have just shot up a less-secure military or government office if need be.

Forget mental illness, how about two separate arrests on gun-related charges?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Forget mental illness, how about two separate arrests on gun-related charges?

But no convictions. Or maybe even charges.

I don't know what the government's general employment policy or stance is on arrests that don't result in convictions. But BEFORE someone shoots up an office, there's a lot of potential backlash for penalizing people for getting mental health treatment, or for getting arrested but never convicted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

But no convictions. Or maybe even charges.

I don't know what the government's general employment policy or stance is on arrests that don't result in convictions. But BEFORE someone shoots up an office, there's a lot of potential backlash for penalizing people for getting mental health treatment, or for getting arrested but never convicted.

Just to add to that thought, if you start restricting people from a job just because they were accused of something, I could see those people doing the exact same thing because they're pissed that you took away what they felt was a good job. Yes, you'd be taking away an ID, but they know the place and still would likely find a way in.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

But no convictions. Or maybe even charges.

I don't know what the government's general employment policy or stance is on arrests that don't result in convictions. But BEFORE someone shoots up an office, there's a lot of potential backlash for penalizing people for getting mental health treatment, or for getting arrested but never convicted.

Just to add to that thought, if you start restricting people from a job just because they were accused of something, I could see those people doing the exact same thing because they're pissed that you took away what they felt was a good job. Yes, you'd be taking away an ID, but they know the place and still would likely find a way in.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

But no convictions. Or maybe even charges.

I don't know what the government's general employment policy or stance is on arrests that don't result in convictions. But BEFORE someone shoots up an office, there's a lot of potential backlash for penalizing people for getting mental health treatment, or for getting arrested but never convicted.

Yeah, but per the article:

Originally Posted by article

The Experts, a defence contractor, said the check on Alexis was carried out three months ago. The company said that had it known of his two arrests for gun-related offences, it would not have employed him.

That sounds like they have a clear policy which he would have contravened, so the failure here is in the veracity of the background check. Which is worrying. Presumably the background check also failed the gun store which sold him the weapons, since it was during the same time frame.

Anyway....

Originally Posted by molson

But BEFORE someone shoots up an office, there's a lot of potential backlash for penalizing people for getting mental health treatment, or for getting arrested but never convicted.

Could you clarify the penalty in question here?

There is, to me, a difference between not allowing someone to take a job due to these issues vs. not allowing someone to have a secret clearance due to these issues vs. not allowing someone to purchase guns due to these issues.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just to add to that thought, if you start restricting people from a job just because they were accused of something, I could see those people doing the exact same thing because they're pissed that you took away what they felt was a good job. Yes, you'd be taking away an ID, but they know the place and still would likely find a way in.

We're not talking about McDonalds. We're talking about a facility requiring a security clearance that (amongst other things) houses weapons and other ordnance. You're suggesting we shouldn't restrict their access because they might get their feelings hurt? You sound downright "liberal", my friend....

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We're not talking about McDonalds. We're talking about a facility requiring a security clearance that (amongst other things) houses weapons and other ordnance. You're suggesting we shouldn't restrict their access because they might get their feelings hurt? You sound downright "liberal", my friend....

I don't think anybody's disagreeing with you about what would be ideal, I'm just saying that it's easier said after the fact than done at the time. The private contractor claims that they wouldn't have hired him because of arrests that didn't result in convictions, and as a private employer, they maybe have leeway to make calls like that (or to refuse to hire people who they know to have received mental health treatment.) But there's a reason arrests don't show up on all manners of background checks available to private employers, and reasons mental health treatment information isn't always available either.

The clearances are the military's call, and like I said, I don't know how they calculate arrests that don't go anywhere. I do know that military personnel are always calling state prosecutors trying to get them to dismiss or reduce state charges against soldiers so those soldiers can gain certain clearances to get promotions.

I'm with you, I think the right to "privacy" is over-emphasized in our society and it shouldn't play as much a part as it does in employment and security determinations. But the reality is, right now, it does. There's government lawyers whose full-time job it is to try to justify firings and removals of security clearances. Sometimes the obstacle is protocols that are actually in place, and sometimes the obstacle is just a supervisor's idea about what's "safe" to do politically, and to avoid pressure that might spark more protocol.

Edit: My 10-second research about security clearances and arrests dug this up, I have no idea how credible it is:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...rity_clearance

"On the surface, that seems hard to square with the fact that Alexis was arrested in 2004 after walking out of his home and using a Glock handgun to fire two bullets into the rear wheels of a car belonging to a construction worker who Alexis claimed had disrespected him. Alexis admitted to shooting out the tires, but told police he had acted while in an anger-induced "blackout." He was arrested, but ultimately did not face charges.

That, the official said, is one of the keys to understanding how Alexis received and maintained his security clearance. The official said a service member would normally need to be convicted of a crime, not simply arrested, to lose his or her clearance. Alexis, for all of his troubles with the law, was never tried or convicted. "

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We're not talking about McDonalds. We're talking about a facility requiring a security clearance that (amongst other things) houses weapons and other ordnance. You're suggesting we shouldn't restrict their access because they might get their feelings hurt? You sound downright "liberal", my friend....

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying I could see this as a definite no-win situation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[JPhillips]

One thing that won't be considered.

Maybe we have just too big of a national security state that requires all these employees with security clearance. You have to figure if Snowden and this guy slipped through in part due to the need for a huge number of employees there are a lot of other questionable clearances out there.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Forget mental illness, how about two separate arrests on gun-related charges?

How does someone who accidentally fires a bullet through the floor of an apartment into the one below manage not to end up convicted or be prevented from owning a weapon.

At the very least that means he was cleaning it loaded which is surely bloody stupid and dangerous?

(or to put it another way if it'd killed someone when it went off surely he'd have been tried for manslaughter? ... or would they just slap his wrist and say 'oh thats a shame' ?)

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

One thing that won't be considered.
Maybe we have just too big of a national security state that requires all these employees with security clearance. You have to figure if Snowden and this guy slipped through in part due to the need for a huge number of employees there are a lot of other questionable clearances out there.

One thing people forget is that articles love to say someone is 'security cleared' - there are a huge myriad of levels of such clearance and I doubt that he had high clearance at all.

Heck I was 'security cleared' once upon a time (in various nations military branches including the US) ... doesn't mean I was privy to any particular information or weaponry, just that I was allowed on military bases in some areas to work as a civilian contractor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One thing people forget is that articles love to say someone is 'security cleared' - there are a huge myriad of levels of such clearance and I doubt that he had high clearance at all.

Heck I was 'security cleared' once upon a time (in various nations military branches including the US) ... doesn't mean I was privy to any particular information or weaponry, just that I was allowed on military bases in some areas to work as a civilian contractor.

This is a very fair point IMO.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One thing people forget is that articles love to say someone is 'security cleared' - there are a huge myriad of levels of such clearance and I doubt that he had high clearance at all.

Heck I was 'security cleared' once upon a time (in various nations military branches including the US) ... doesn't mean I was privy to any particular information or weaponry, just that I was allowed on military bases in some areas to work as a civilian contractor.

Same here. I worked on military bases, DOJ law offices, IRS offices, Senate offices, Federal Reserve banks, post offices, and prisons- both federal (Leavenworth represent!) and local. But in most cases, I had to be escorted at all times, and I had no access to any information. But in a lot of cases, I did have tools on me and had to go through a metal detector. Only a couple of those I needed to do a background check for. And I think this would be true of most plumbers, electricians, telephony/networking, or any other computer repair folks

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

How does someone who accidentally fires a bullet through the floor of an apartment into the one below manage not to end up convicted or be prevented from owning a weapon.

At the very least that means he was cleaning it loaded which is surely bloody stupid and dangerous?

(or to put it another way if it'd killed someone when it went off surely he'd have been tried for manslaughter? ... or would they just slap his wrist and say 'oh thats a shame' ?)

Depends on if he was living in Florida at the time or not.

On a serious note though, I agree 100%.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

How does someone who accidentally fires a bullet through the floor of an apartment into the one below manage not to end up convicted or be prevented from owning a weapon.

At the very least that means he was cleaning it loaded which is surely bloody stupid and dangerous?

(or to put it another way if it'd killed someone when it went off surely he'd have been tried for manslaughter? ... or would they just slap his wrist and say 'oh thats a shame' ?)

I don't know if there's a Texas statute that makes an accidental gun discharge a crime or not. I know there's "reckless firearm discharge" statutes generally, but those entail firing the gun on purpose, but doing it in a reckless manner (like firing it in the air or at a wall in your house for fun).

If such a crime exists, it's a misdemeanor, so I don't believe it would cause a Brady check denial, I believe the only misdemeanors that the Brady Bill covers are domestic batteries.

Just looking at it as a judgment call, there's all kinds of people we'd love to take guns from, but it's still a constitutional right, so there's still pretty strict processes involved.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

Just looking at it as a judgment call, there's all kinds of people we'd love to take guns from, but it's still a constitutional right, so there's still pretty strict processes involved.

Personally I don't think guns ownership should be a 'right' for everyone - not if it endangers others, it befuddles my senses that in the US smoking is merrily restricted as is car driving both because they're seen as being risky to others to be freely undertaken without restrictions ..... yet for some reason gun ownership is sacrosanct.

(I have this mental image of someone trying to hold up a shop with a cigarette and a lighter saying 'hand me the money from the till or I'm lighting this up' )

[chadritt]

well nobody ever said anything about smoking on a very old piece of paper that got signed by important people, if they had then people would be smoking in all my favorite bars and restaurants which would make me stop going to them. Thats literally the only difference as far as I can tell.