Feinstein uses Navy Yard shooting to call for more gun control.

The police and prosecutor believed him. That's why no charges were filed.
Click to expand...
Actually, the police referred the case to the prosecutor for charges. It was solely the prosecutor's decision not to file in the Ft. Worth case. And as for the prosecutor "believing him", well...there are all manner of reasons why prosecutors file and why they do not file charges.

Let's be honest - virtually ALL of these "gun cleaning" accidental/negligent discharge stories are just that - stories.
 
Liable isn't appropriate unless a AR-15 can sue for being insulted incorrectly. I don't think you can sue for being stupid.

If you could sue for stupid advice - that would take down the Internet.

BTW, there are plenty of real cleaning accidents. Not that they were not negligent but it happens and folks have died for it.

On the other hand, some suicides are set up to look like cleaning accidents.
 
Let's review,

He shoots through his ceiling and into his neighbor's apartment. He claims it's a cleaning accident while the neighbor claims it was intentional.

I suppose I could have been generous enough to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case, though if the prosecutor really wanted to he could have probably charged him with something like reckless endangerment

He shoots out the tires of a neighbor's car claiming that he "blacked out" in a fit of rage.

Charges should have definitely been filed in this case. At the very least, property destruction and unlawful discharge of a firearm would be appropriate and, honestly, I don't think that assault with a deadly weapon would be inappropriate. Also, if his claim that he "blacked out" in a fit of rage was believed, then that should meet the legal definition of "a danger to self or others" to justify involuntary commitment to a psychiatric ward.

From what we've heard, he had multiple disciplinary actions taken against him and was forced out of the Navy yet still received an honorable discharge.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about military discipline to be able to comment on whether or not his disciplinary problems would have been severe enough to warrant a dishonorable discharge. However, I do know that a dishonorable discharge is comparable to a felony in that it makes one a prohibited person under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

According to several sources including CNN and the UK Daily Mail, the only weapon that was brought to the Navy Yard by the shooter was a shotgun, specifically a Remington 870 per the UK Daily Mail. All other weapons used appear to have been obtained from security/police that were shot on site. Furthermore, the shotgun was purchased from a dealer and the shooter presumably passed a NICS check to obtain it.

I don't recall seeing pump-action shotguns on any assault weapon ban lists. As a matter of fact, even under the NY SAFE Act which, which gun-control advocates proudly promote as the toughest in the nation, said shotgun would still be legal.

So, in review the shooter appears to have started his rampage with a gun that would still be legal even under Sen. Feinstein's AWB and any "assault weapons" used were obtained from the police/military, which even Sen. Feinstein isn't advocating disarming. Furthermore, we have at least one, if not two chargeable offences in the shooter's past as well as ample legal justification to involuntarily commit him and possibly severe enough discipline problems to warrant a dishonorable discharge from the Navy any one of which could have been used to place him on the prohibited persons list therefore denying him the ability to pass a NICS check.

So, it appears to me that neither the AWB nor the universal background checks that Sen. Feinstein wants could have prevented this incident since the shooter apparently passed a background check and did not, initially at least, use an assault weapon. Perhaps if Sen. Feinstein had waited to learn even a few of the facts, her comments wouldn't seem so asinine. Of course the facts seem to indicate that the blame for this incident lies in multiple failures to enforce existing laws rather than the need for new ones, but that doesn't fit Sen. Feinstein's agenda.
 
"Holding liable" was for Biden and the AR has been overdone so much its starting to looking like a $2 steak. If what their saying is correct, and he stole the rifle from the base, would it not be an M4/16?
 
Speaking of liability, I would be extremely interested in an explanation from the people who decided not to bring charges when he was arrested before, particularly in the incident where he shot out the tires. Now, I suspect I may already know the answer these questions, but I'll refrain from stating my theory unless more facts present themselves.
 
Why is it more important to regulate inanimate objects than to tackle the difficult but critical issue of how to prevent cases of mass homicidal ideation?
Click to expand...
Tell me about.
Also, the idea that a politician should never let a good Tragedy go to waste really takes precedence over the families of the victims and what they are going through.:mad:

"Double Barrel" Biden said himself that a double barrel shotgun was much more controllable than an AR-15. Can someone hold him liable? I actually made it through 20 minutes of piers Morgan, I never heard the gun switch a roo though though.
Click to expand...
The shotgun had me thinking too.
By the way Biden, hows that shotgun idea working out for you? Guess you need to step it up a notch huh? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Media stirring the pot, Getting Obama to chyme in...
Asked later about whether the shooting would reignite his call for more gun control, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president was implementing executive actions and reiterated his commitment to strengthening gun laws, including expanding background checks to sales online and at gun shows. "The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence," Carney said.

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/0...rol-debate-reignited-94098.html#ixzz2fC4dptQi
Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook
Click to expand...
from http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/0...oting-gun-control-debate-reignited-94098.html
Putting words in our mouths as well.:rolleyes:
 
Webleymkv,

Between Honorable and Dishonorable there are multiple levels.

General Discharge; Other Than Honorable Discharge; Bad Conduct Discharge (IIRC).

There is also an Administrative Separation, which is sort of a no harm, no foul deal, but IIRC that can only be done within the first 18 months of service. (Example: washing out of a training course during a RIF).

Honorable discharges qualify for full VA, GI Bill, and veteran's preference benefits. Other types lose privileges as one descends toward the DD.

Article 15s generally would not result in a DD, but could result in one of the other, lower than Honorable types.
 
Reid said no gun control - not enough votes.

There is a case out where someone claimed Biden's advice made him do it - but that didn't fly.

I think we discussed it.

About warning signs:

1. FBI higher ups ignore 9/11 pilot training warning
2. VT ignores Cho who is reported
3. Amy Bishop kills her brother and punches out mom in IHOP
4. FBI ignores Boston bomber - not enough info - even with NSA monitoring the universe.
5. Ex-major Hassan's warning signs ignored.
6. Kip Kingle's parents buy a disturbed young man a Glock
7. Columbine parents - clueless.

What else is new?
 
Glenn, don't sell the government short on the Tsarnaevs. Forget NSA monitoring, the government ignored warnings from the Russians about them; the government ignored warnings from the Saudis about them. No NSA trolling was required.

In the face of those warnings, the feds did nothing, and the state of Massachusetts provided something on the lines of $100k in benefits (over a period of years) to the Tsarnaevs.

But limiting the size of the magazine on any firearm for which they would want a background check if I gave it to my same-state father-in-law, that would keep us safe...
 
Another instance of someone who has a mental disorder going berserk.

As in many of these mass shootings, the shooter came to the attention of mental health professionals and they apparently didn't help him. A federal official is cited as stating that Alexis sought help for mental problems about a month ago. But no, let's not talk about the failure of the mental health establishment.

I politely beg leave to again remind everyone that, by any measure, those with serious mental health problems are far more often the victims of violence than perpetrators of it.

That having been said, do we know for sure that the mental health professionals "didn't help him?" Perhaps he "sought help" by making a doctor's appointment, but never showed. Perhaps he came to his appointment, and was prescribed medication by the doctor but never took it, or was referred to a support group but never attended. Perhaps he came to his appointment, but the doctor was not supplied with critical/accurate information about the man's past behaviors and decided --- based solely on what he knew --- that the person didn't need further treatment. Perhaps the doctor was alarmed enough to recommend involuntary hospitalization for further evaluation, with forced medication if need be, but the non-mental-health professional reviewing the petition (e.g., an administrative law judge or county mental hygiene commissioner) denied the petition for commitment because he or she felt that the person did not represent an imminent danger to themselves/others. (One may recognize the voice of experience in the above.)

If the mental health professionals involved were operating within the very strict limits placed on their authority (which can vary from state to state and even county to county), then where does the failure lie? Is it desirable to broaden the authority of psychiatrists/psychologists to decide who is dangerous (or even potentially dangerous) and should be forced into treatment? As a psychiatrist, I am not sure I would be comfortable with any expansion of authority to curtail (even temporarily) someone's liberty and civil rights, absent some further safeguards to prevent Soviet-style abuses of the mental health system.
 
The same Feinstein who said in 1994 the an interview "that the gun ban they just passed would do nothing to affect crime but would just get people used to guns getting banned from private ownership".
 
http://bearingarms.com/dismayed-feinstein-unlikely-to-pursue-another-attempt-at-assault-weapons-ban/

I'm not sure if we're accepting this as a credible source, but this is good news here for sure.

Here's another thing I've been wondering lately: With an average 18 people per year killed by mass shootings, do we really have a need or even a capability to deal with it? That's in the same neighborhood as deaths by shark attacks or falling coconuts and vending machines. It's a statistical anomaly. And I'm not convinced you can stop anomalies. If 1 in 4 Americans has had mental health treatment at some time, and we've had 30 go on mass shootings (all with mental health problems) that means 1 in 2.5 million people with mental health problems become mass shooters.

I'm just not convinced those odds can be tackled. Even if they are, should we be spending hundreds of millions of dollars stopping this rare, statistically insignificant events? To me, it sounds like a moral panic based on emotional bias. It's vivid realism or whatever the term is.

Let's focus on driving deaths, gang shootings, strong arm robberies, child drownings, accidental overdoses -- things we can actually touch. When you're playing with statistics like 347 people out of a nation of 300 million dying by mass murder, I just don't think you're going to have the capability to affect change.
 
President Clinton's executive order making bases gun free zones is responsible for the body count at the Navy Yard and Fort Hood. Gun free zones only serve one purpose - to make a shooting gallery easily accessible to a crazy gunman. Somehow the fact that so many soldiers (or sailors) were unarmed and unable to defend themselves is escaping the media.

I also learned today that our bases overseas are also safe "gun free zones". Can you imagine a coordinated attack by 2 or 3 terrorists? This is crazy.
 
Perhaps he "sought help" by making a doctor's appointment, but never showed. Perhaps he came to his appointment, and was prescribed medication by the doctor but never took it, or was referred to a support group but never attended.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. However, had the criminal justice system done its job after the Seattle incident, there's a good possibility he would have been ordered to get treatment. The guy claimed his anger caused him to "black out," which led (twice) to him using a gun in an illegal and dangerous manner.
 
Originally posted by MLeake
Article 15s generally would not result in a DD, but could result in one of the other, lower than Honorable types.
Click to expand...

Would one of the other lower than Honorable types be sufficient to justify revoking his security clearance? I ask because without security clearance he may very well not have been able to gain access to the Navy Yard in the first place.

Originally posted by Quincunx
If the mental health professionals involved were operating within the very strict limits placed on their authority (which can vary from state to state and even county to county), then where does the failure lie? Is it desirable to broaden the authority of psychiatrists/psychologists to decide who is dangerous (or even potentially dangerous) and should be forced into treatment? As a psychiatrist, I am not sure I would be comfortable with any expansion of authority to curtail (even temporarily) someone's liberty and civil rights, absent some further safeguards to prevent Soviet-style abuses of the mental health system.
Click to expand...

While I cannot speak for others, I don't view the failure of the mental health system in this case to necessarily be on the part of the psychiatrist. While my experience in mental health is admittedly limited, I do have some experience and understanding of it (I am an RN) and it is my understanding that involuntary committal normally requires the order of a judge.

Because of this, I view the judge and the authorities such as the police and/or prosecutor who might bring mental issues before the judge as part of that aspect of the mental health system. I cannot understand how "blacking out" in a fit of rage and shooting out someones tires would not constitute a clear case of "danger to self or others" and thus, in this case at least, I feel that the failure is on the part of the judge who would not order involuntary committal or the authorities who would not bring such issues before the judge and ask for such an order.

Even if the treatment were unsuccessful (the reports that he was hearing voices sounds very much like Schizophrenia which I know can be very difficult to treat), the fact that he was involuntarily committed would have flagged him as a prohibited person and thus may have prevented him from obtaining a shotgun in the first place.
 
Perhaps. However, had the criminal justice system done its job after the Seattle incident, there's a good possibility he would have been ordered to get treatment. The guy claimed his anger caused him to "black out," which led (twice) to him using a gun in an illegal and dangerous manner.

I agree entirely. Thank you!
 
With an average 18 people per year killed by mass shootings, do we really have a need or even a capability to deal with it? That's in the same neighborhood as deaths by shark attacks or falling coconuts and vending machines. It's a statistical anomaly. And I'm not convinced you can stop anomalies.
Click to expand...
That is a sound analysis and a very apt observation.

It's precisely the fact that mass shootings are virtually unpreventable combined with the guaranteed national publicity that accompanies them that has made them a focus of those who promote gun control. Mass shootings get a lot of press and if the gun control advocates' goals can't be achieved by grandstanding on the current crop of bodies from the latest mass shooting, there will be another one before too long and they can try again.

That said, assuming that gun restrictions/regulations are actually intended to deal with situations like mass shootings probably misses the mark somewhat. Mass shootings are certainly a convenient and sometimes effective method of "selling" gun control to the general public, but that's not the same thing as saying that gun control is actually about stopping/preventing mass shootings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top