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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/police-search-for-active-shooter-on-grounds-of-washington-navy-yard-in-southeast-dc/2013/09/16/b1d72b9a-1ecb-11e3-b7d1-7153ad47b549_story.html)

[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 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

[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]

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 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

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]

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/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.workplacementalhealth.org/Business-Case/Business-Case-for-Mental-Health-and-Substance-Use-Disorder-Treatment.aspx)

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]

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]

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 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/09/17/2766529/for-families-in-crisis-a-voice.html)

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]

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]

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? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-background-check-employer-gun)

[molson]

Forget mental illness, how about two separate arrests on gun-related charges? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-background-check-employer-gun)

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]

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]

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]

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:

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....

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]

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]

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/2013/09/17/heres_how_the_navy_yard_killer_managed_to_keep_his_security_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]

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]

Forget mental illness, how about two separate arrests on gun-related charges? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-background-check-employer-gun)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[molson]

Well that, and actually shooting a gun in most places will get you in a bit more trouble that smoking a cigarette. And I'm pretty sure this guy was allowed to carry cigarettes into his office, but not firearms. He didn't have any particular right to possess cigarettes, but there are no laws restricting that possession. He would be restricted from gun ownership if he had convictions for any felony, or misdemeanor domestic battery, or had been involuntary committed in a mental institution (and a few other reasons). Other than that, exactly the same.

[Autumn]

I haven't checked today for more infromation, but what amazes me is how this guy walked into a Navy yard, clearance or no clearance, with all this weaponry. Seems like that should be impossible?

There are a lot of difficult issues to solve in preventing something like this. But in general I think we agree there should be some sort of gun-ownership repercussions for someone who demonstrates that they're not able to safely take care of their weapon. The fact that his landlord didn't have a bigger response to having him shot a hole in the wall seems odd to me.

[panerd]

I haven't checked today for more infromation, but what amazes me is how this guy walked into a Navy yard, clearance or no clearance, with all this weaponry. Seems like that should be impossible?

There are a lot of difficult issues to solve in preventing something like this. But in general I think we agree there should be some sort of gun-ownership repercussions for someone who demonstrates that they're not able to safely take care of their weapon. The fact that his landlord didn't have a bigger response to having him shot a hole in the wall seems odd to me.

From what I have read he had a diassembled shotgun in his bag and put it together in the bathroom once inside and then took the handgun off one of his police victims. This was from a few days ago also so maybe that isn't the story anymore.

[molson]

This is kind of an interesting breakdown of how the different states deal with mental health and firearms. The Brady federal check which applies to everyone isn't very stringent, it will block a sale if you have been "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution". All of the states have their own restrictions, many of which are similar to the Brady restrictions, but of course, government agencies are less than super awesome at communicating with each other, and many government employees are paralyzed with fear (and paranoia) at violating real or imagined "privacy" regulations, so the checks can turn up different stuff.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

With both mental health and prior criminal record/uncharged conduct, you have to have some kind of defined standard. It's easy to look at someone after the fact and say, "that guy's shady, he shouldn't have guns." But there has to be some standard and due process that balances security and rights, and it's not going to be perfect. Serious criminal convictions are an easy standard states can rely on because so much due process is already attached to criminal adjudications. I don't know how far we can really go beyond that though. Should it be easier for a state to take away your gun rights than it is to execute you, or you put you in prison for life? And who makes that call, and how is that adjudicated and appealed? Without a conviction, the government would have to, at the very least, re-visit that apartment shooting situation somehow, give the guy some kind of right to challenge any findings that the government is relying on to take away his rights based on an old police report that never resulted in charges. That would be really hard to do on a large scale.

[Qwikshot]

I haven't checked today for more infromation, but what amazes me is how this guy walked into a Navy yard, clearance or no clearance, with all this weaponry. Seems like that should be impossible?

There are a lot of difficult issues to solve in preventing something like this. But in general I think we agree there should be some sort of gun-ownership repercussions for someone who demonstrates that they're not able to safely take care of their weapon. The fact that his landlord didn't have a bigger response to having him shot a hole in the wall seems odd to me.

Apparently, he had the shotgun disassembled in a bag...went into a bathroom, assembled and went on his spree.

[cartman]

That would be really hard to do on a large scale.

As someone once said:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

[molson]

As someone once said:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

That's great unless you have to deal in realities. What's your plan and how would we implement it? It's not like people don't try to make these systems as effective as possible.

[molson]

Dola. Most people think about issues involving gun rights, criminal justice, police power, the 4th amendment, privacy, balancing security against rights, etc., when there's a big newsworthy shooting. For others, its their career either to be in the middle of it, or on one side or another contesting things on a case-by-case basis. When I say it's "hard", or point out the challenges involved to having a better or perfect system when there's competing interests, I'm not arguing that nobody should ever try. Many, many try, every day, over their whole lives. Just because we don't like that people have rights, that doesn't mean that the state can or should ignore them when it seems like it would be a good idea. You need systems that will be able to withstand attacks based on those rights (and not just gun rights, privacy rights related to the 4th amendment, HIPAA regulations, due process rights, etc.) And believe me, no state or law enforcement agency sees those challenges and just "gives up" because it's too hard, that's not what I'm saying. I think the systems work fairly well considering the strength of those rights, and there are many who dedicate their lives to improving those systems and making them more effective.

[cartman]

First off we have to find a way to accept that some people just don't need to have guns. Yes, the 2nd Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But that is also preceded by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". Letting anyone and everyone have a firearm doesn't fit with the first part. And in determining that, it is safer to err on the side of caution, to keep the militia well regulated. The last several high profile cases have shown that the shooters had mental issues (Sandy Hook, Colorado theater, Navy Yard). The institutions such as the one shown in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" were shut down en masse in the 1980s, and mental health spending was no longer made a priority. So the pendulum swung 180 degrees the other direction, from a central point of care to no care or rare care, and the jails soon became the central points of care for mental health cases.

If a conviction is what is currently takes to lose the right to own a firearm, maybe there needs to be some sort of new classification that relates strictly to gun misuse. The Navy Yard shooter freely admitted to the accidental discharge, where he claimed he was cleaning his gun while also cooking in the kitchen. Then for the Seattle incident he claims he blacked out and didn't remember shooting out the tires. But since neither of those resulted in convictions, what should have been huge red flags were ignored.

[molson]

Letting anyone and everyone have a firearm doesn't fit with the first part.


That's not the state of the current law. So we're already way ahead of where you think we are.

[molson]

If a conviction is what is currently takes to lose the right to own a firearm, maybe there needs to be some sort of new classification that relates strictly to gun misuse. The Navy Yard shooter freely admitted to the accidental discharge, where he claimed he was cleaning his gun while also cooking in the kitchen. Then for the Seattle incident he claims he blacked out and didn't remember shooting out the tires. But since neither of those resulted in convictions, what should have been huge red flags were ignored.

I could see an amendment to Brady or state laws that added a provision for misdemeanor convictions that involve gun misuse. Nothing like that will get through Congress these days but it could happen at the state level, and in theory at the national level if we ever have an effective legislature again.

But I think uncharged conduct is a more sensitive topic. A police report has this air of authority in everyday life, where we can take it as fact that these things happened and that he "freely admitted" certain damning things, but in a legal sense that's all just one police officer's factual allegations or interpretation of an encounter. That might be enough for someone not to get a job if an employer got a hold of it somehow, but not enough to take away a constitutional right. Would be willing to give police reports that kind of power in other contexts? Like, to take away a constitutional right that you actually value?

[cartman]

Letting anyone and everyone have a firearm doesn't fit with the first part.

That's not the state of the current law. So we're already way ahead of where you think we are.

I agree that is the case, but the rhetoric doesn't match that. Otherwise, why was their so much resistance to closing the gun show background check loophole when that was brought up?

But I think uncharged conduct is a more sensitive topic. A police report has this air of authority in everyday life, where we can take it as fact that these things happened and that he "freely admitted" certain damning things, but in a legal sense that's all just one police officer's factual allegations or interpretation of an encounter. That might be enough for someone not to get a job if an employer got a hold of it somehow, but not enough to take away a constitutional right.

That's also what I was getting at. It seems that the second part of the 2nd Amendment takes precedence. I would argue that the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' is what grants the right to keep and bear arms. It seems that almost all of the things to keep someone from the well-regulated part seems to come after the fact (convicted felon, etc.).

[molson]

That's also what I was getting at. It seems that the second part of the 2nd Amendment takes precedence. I would argue that the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' is what grants the right to keep and bear arms. It seems that almost all of the things to keep someone from the well-regulated part seems to come after the fact (convicted felon, etc.).

But in reality, law enforcement agencies and legislatures are stuck with the Supreme Court's interpretation (unless it changes or until we amend the Constitution).

[JonInMiddleGA]

(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' ;) )

And now I have this mental image of a few places I've seen where that might just work :D

[molson]

The right to bear arms is so weird because it's maybe the one right a sizable chunk of Americans don't want the people to have. So, naturally, they have no problem at all with expanding the government's police power to severely limit that right. Where in any other context, when it comes to rights they actually value, the police power and government is scary and we need to severely restrict THEM from encroaching on how we interpret the rights we like. But from a legal perspective, and a government perspective, rights are rights, they're all obstacles to the exercise of government power. It's just amusing how completely different kinds of people on opposite sides of the political spectrum want the government to limit rights, depending on how much that person or entity personally values that right. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's plenty of reasonable arguments that certain rights are more objectively valuable, and I know I'm just stating the obvious.

[BishopMVP]

If a conviction is what is currently takes to lose the right to own a firearm, maybe there needs to be some sort of new classification that relates strictly to gun misuse. The Navy Yard shooter freely admitted to the accidental discharge, where he claimed he was cleaning his gun while also cooking in the kitchen. Then for the Seattle incident he claims he blacked out and didn't remember shooting out the tires. But since neither of those resulted in convictions, what should have been huge red flags were ignored.Does anyone have better information on what happened after the Seattle incident? I can understand how he wasn't charged for the "accidental" discharge if the landlord agreed to be paid money by Alexis for the damage, the downstairs neighbor wasn't adamant about pressing charges, and the police didn't want to deal with all the extra work if there was no real victim clamoring for justice, but I can't figure out how he wouldn't at least have been charged with a crime up in Seattle. Did he plea bargain down to a lesser charge, or did the case fall apart in the courts due to lack of evidence or something?

[cartman]

The right to bear arms is so weird because it's maybe the one right a sizable chunk of Americans don't want the people to have. So, naturally, they have no problem at all with expanding the government's police power to severely limit that right. Where in any other context, when it comes to rights they actually value, the police power and government is scary and we need to severely restrict THEM from encroaching on how we interpret the rights we like. But from a legal perspective, and a government perspective, rights are rights, they're all obstacles to the exercise of government power. It's just amusing how completely different kinds of people on opposite sides of the political spectrum want the government to limit rights, depending on how much that person or entity personally values that right. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's plenty of reasonable arguments that certain rights are more objectively valuable, and I know I'm just stating the obvious.

But the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, as you have agreed, as is the case for many of the items in the Bill of Rights. There are limits. The Supreme Court has agreed with this as well, in the DC v. Heller ruling. What I see most people wanting is not for all guns to be banned, as you seem to infer in your first statement, rather that the government do what it can to regulate those who should not have them gaining possession. That is a vital difference.

What we have right now is an environment where the guns are easily available to anyone, with only cursory, almost 'honor system' type checks done, and then claim that because these checks are bypassed/short circuited by persons who have been disqualified from using their right to bear arms, there is nothing that really could have been done to stop said person from getting a weapon.

[molson]

But the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, as you have agreed, as is the case for many of the items in the Bill of Rights. There are limits. The Supreme Court has agreed with this as well, in the DC v. Heller ruling. What I see most people wanting is not for all guns to be banned, as you seem to infer in your first statement, rather that the government do what it can to regulate those who should not have them gaining possession. That is a vital difference.


The rights aren't absolute, but they do exist, and the government is still bound by them and the appellate court's interpretation of constitutional law, and maybe reasonable inferences made from those interpretations. They can't just make and enforce rules based on their own personal interpretation of what they think the constitution should say, or their own ideas about who should get to have guns. Edit (When police and law enforcement agencies do this in other contexts, we really don't like it, but for some reason, when it comes to guns, the same people are super-hawkish about pushing the envelopes of what might be legal, and not an intrusion on constitutional rights.)

From what I can tell, you want the legislature to ban people from firearm ownership, if their name appears in a police report in which officers allege some type of uncharged conduct involving negligent use of firearms. The government certainly doesn't have the authority to do that now. And looking at potential in the future, it seems like a pretty limited solution, but even if it was a step in the right direction, its not going to happen, either politically, or constitutionally. And I'm not sure if THAT'S really the battle worth fighting when there's zero chance of success, getting back to my points on the last page.

[cartman]

The rights aren't absolute, but they do exist, and the government is still bound by them and the appellate court's interpretation of constitutional law, and maybe reasonable inferences made from those interpretations. They can't just make and enforce rules based on their own personal interpretation of what they think the constitution should say.

And that is a place that the Supremes left wide open with Heller. They didn't issue anything to give clarity on when it is appropriate to restrict the right to bear arms, only that Heller was in no way supposed to be used to support or criticize the longstanding bans that were already in place. Since there has been approximately zero case law on the matter, there isn't much for legislatures to go on for guidance. So it isn't a matter of what they think the Constitution should say, it is a matter of what they think the Constitution does say to support what ever measures they would like to enact. And that interpretation likely would ultimately go to the Supreme Court if contentious enough.

[molson]

And that is a place that the Supremes left wide open with Heller. They didn't issue anything to give clarity on when it is appropriate to restrict the right to bear arms, only that Heller was in no way supposed to be used to support or criticize the longstanding bans that were already in place. Since there has been approximately zero case law on the matter, there isn't much for legislatures to go on for guidance. So it isn't a matter of what they think the Constitution should say, it is a matter of what they think the Constitution does say to support what ever measures they would like to enact. And that interpretation likely would ultimately go to the Supreme Court if contentious enough.

Do you think this is true in other contexts with other constitutional rights? Should police and law enforcement agencies generally push the envelope and err on the side of security when it comes to constitutional rights, if there's no supreme court opinion that specifically says they can't do something? (Edit: I guess in some contexts, some law enforcement agencies could be accused of doing just that, but even then, they have defense attorneys and ACLU lawsuits to contend with. There are really layers of checks on government intrusion on rights, which is of course, very intentional. So many people just want to forget that exists when it comes to guns. If you really want a secure society with minimal crime, I know some law enforcement officers who would have all kinds of great ideas, if you don't mind a little push-back on 4th amendment protections, which are not absolute, of course.)

[cartman]

Do you think this is true in other contexts with other constitutional rights? Should police and law enforcement agencies generally push the envelope and err on the side of security when it comes to constitutional rights, if there's no supreme court opinion that specifically says they can't do something? (Edit: I guess in some contexts, some law enforcement agencies could be accused of doing just that, but even then, they have defense attorneys and ACLU lawsuits to contend with. There are really layers of checks of government intrusion on rights, which is of course, very intentional. So many people just want to forget that exists when it comes to guns. If you really want a secure society with minimal crime, I know some law enforcement officers who would have all kinds of great ideas, if you don't mind a little push-back on 4th amendment protections, which are not absolute, of course.)

For most rights, there is ample case law to refer to. And for issues where there is no/minimal established case law, then yes, the Supreme Court steps in. And usually in instances where the envelope has been pushed.

But, as I was mentioning earlier, it seems that when it comes to guns, the direct mention of a 'well regulated militia' seems to be brushed to the side as a nuisance, and not much thought is given to that part of the sentence, where the second half is regarded as sacrosanct.

[molson]

But, as I was mentioning earlier, it seems that when it comes to guns, the direct mention of a 'well regulated militia' seems to be brushed to the side as a nuisance, and not much thought is given to that part of the sentence, where the second half is regarded as sacrosanct.

That angle is more scholarly than anything that's gained any traction in actual appellate opinions. I suppose a law enforcement agency could just decide, "hey, what about this part about militias! We're going to guns from all the creepy people!" That would be pretty aggressive. Would you be OK with agencies being similarly aggressive with regard to their scholarly theories regarding 4th amendment or other rights?

[cartman]

Dola,

And for the record, I am far from anti-gun. I believe by default you do have the right to keep and bear arms. My personal interpretation of a 'well regulated militia' is comprised of all of the citizens who are willing to understand and accept the responsibility the right to keep and bear these arms entails, and their actions with the firearms shows this. If you are unwilling (through acts of crime for example) or unable (due to mental and/or psychiatric issues, for example) to do so, then you exclude yourself from the 'well regulated militia', either by self-inaction (not keeping a firearm) or legislative action (barring felons from owning weapons).

[cartman]

That angle is more scholarly than anything that's gained any traction in actual appellate opinions. I suppose a law enforcement agency could just decide, "hey, what about this part about militias! We're going to guns from all the creepy people!" That would be pretty aggressive. Would you be OK with agencies being similarly aggressive with regard to their scholarly theories regarding 4th amendment or other rights?

If their scholarly theories had not been covered by existing 4th amendment case law, then that would be something for review. But the precise example you gave has already been ruled unconstitutional by the numerous examples of having to show probable cause. You have to keep bringing up these strawmen, because there simply aren't any Supreme Court rulings on that part of the 2nd Amendment as there are with the other Amendments.

[molson]

If their scholarly theories had not been covered by existing 4th amendment case law, then that would be something for review. But the precise example you gave has already been ruled unconstitutional by the numerous examples of having to show probable cause. You have to keep bringing up these strawmen, because there simply aren't any Supreme Court rulings on that part of the 2nd Amendment as there are with the other Amendments.

People have all kinds of ideas of what violates their 4th amendment rights and right to privacy despite the lack of a specific United Supreme Court opinion on point with those facts. And some police activities are arguably distinguishable from United States Supreme Court opinions forbidding related tactics, but then are harshly beaten down on appeal anyway. And some law enforcement agencies are advised by their attorneys to refrain from certain tactics because they may violate the 4th amendment, and because they risk convictions for marginal benefit. It's really not that cut-and-dried, especially with the emergence of new technologies. But even with stuff that's more established, the fights in the appellate courts never end, there's always a different angle or different set of facts. Some agencies are more aggressive than others at pushing those envelopes. But when agencies do push those envelopes with regard to the 4th amendment, it's usually not too popular with the same crowd that wants them to push the envelope on 2nd amendment rights in the name of security. Just because those people don't personally value gun rights.

[cartman]

And, as I mentioned, there is much more unexplored area in regards to the 2nd Amendment as there is in regards to the 4th Amendment.

The GPO backs me up on this. In their recent released document regarding case law and the Constitution, there are only 6 pages with case law around the 2nd Amendment, while the 4th Amendment has 92 pages.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.html

[molson]

So what entity do you want to act here, and what exactly do you want them to do? And I don't just mean describe what kinds of people you don't think should have guns, what branch or agency should act and what exactly should they do, that's actually realistic?

[cartman]

If it were my call, here's what I'd do:

We already have a background check system in place, the NICS. No need to reinvent the wheel, when we have a good starting point already there. Work to consolidate the various silos of data, much like with what happened pre-CODIS/IAFIS. Every jurisdiction had it's own set of fingerprints and DNA records. Once that got consolidated, much less fell through the cracks and searching outside your silo got much improved. Right now, there is little to no sharing of data between lists. That would be a good, solid starting point. There doesn't have to be a new cabinet level organization to run this.

But there is such a huge push against something like this from the NRA, that it is a moot point. Their purpose seems to be to get as many guns out there as possible, and then prosecute on the back end, instead of trying to keep the people that already are prohibited (much less expanding that list) from getting them in the first place. It is one of the main reasons I stopped being a member, when in my opinion they moved from primarily a safety and sane gun usage organization to one that wants to be an absolute advocate for the retailing of firearms.

[Marc Vaughan]

Dola,

And for the record, I am far from anti-gun. I believe by default you do have the right to keep and bear arms. My personal interpretation of a 'well regulated militia' is comprised of all of the citizens who are willing to understand and accept the responsibility the right to keep and bear these arms entails, and their actions with the firearms shows this. If you are unwilling (through acts of crime for example) or unable (due to mental and/or psychiatric issues, for example) to do so, then you exclude yourself from the 'well regulated militia', either by self-inaction (not keeping a firearm) or legislative action (barring felons from owning weapons).

A well regulated militia I would have thought would have comprised pretty much what Switzerland have - everyone within a certain age in the country has to spend 'x' days training each year so they could be called upon for defense if the need arises.

They have access to weaponry as its obviously required for these purposes.

That is a 'regulated militia' letting everyone carry guns isn't a militia at all - a militia has a purpose and training surely?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1dsLQLVk7nY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>