Washington Naval Yard shooter
What we know:
First, he didn't have an AR-15, doubtless to the great disappointment of certain legislators. Looks like he had a Remington 870, and two handguns he took off security personnel that he shot. The media are making gallant tries to explain why they were all claiming the AR-15. I suspect someone, somewhere, got that idea and everyone else repeated it.
Second, in 2004, he was in Seattle arrested after shooting out a parked car's tires, and nothing was done beyond the arrest.
Third, in 2010, he shot a bullet up into the apartment of a neighbor with whom he'd argued. He claimed he was cleaning the gun while cooking (?) and accidentally fired it. He was arrested but prosecutors declined to proceed.
Fourth, he was reportedly being treated for paranoid psychosis, which poses quite a risk of danger.
...Had this fellow survived he most likely would have gotten the same treatment as Reagans shooter. He heard voices and sought treatment. He called the cops a month ago because he heard voices. The guy was a loon. He would have got off.
Posted by: Dave D. at September 17, 2013 07:08 PM
Not surprised gov't & Media paint this guy as an administrative problem, but things don't add, in spite of the "gallant efforts". The guy did a full four-year active tour and made promotions, no demotions listed. ...Not the history of a problem military child. Not certain at this point if the guy was honorably discharged, but I don't see a *general discharge* being given after four-years service without it becoming honorable after a certain time passing for a NCO....with FoxNews reporting outstanding military performance reviews with reco's for additional promotion. That means USN wanted to retain him. ...All unusual for someone written up for eight-incidents of discipline.
What's more, he did NOT shoot the security people; he fired at other officers inside. Sooooo how did he get in a major command HQ? Sounds like terrorism to me. DC Mayor says no although media reports his city is being shutdown.
Ever think that it was just a probe to determine how easy the security could be compromised? JMO, There is much more to this than meets the eye.
Posted by: Mark-1 at September 18, 2013 08:11 AM
Mark: Interesting because somewhere else I read that he had a history of insubordination and other problems but it was easier to get him out with the general then go the full route. The Shooting stuff that to me smacks of prosecutor not willing to spend time on small potatoes and just passing it off.
He would have failed background check for the security pass and firearm if "they" did their job. So of course we need more laws. /scar off
Posted by: Rich at September 18, 2013 08:32 AM
Perhaps our "armed forces" should actually be, uhm... "armed". It is ridiculous to think that the police have to respond to an active shooter inside a navy base. Aren't there officers and enlisted sailors there who have guns and ammunition and know how to use it? Apparently not. Don't they teach sailors to shoot, and issue sidearms, anymore? It seems that our own military installations are nowadays "gun free zones" which is so preposterous that it has got to be true in this day and age. Maybe we need to start a movement to "Arm the Armed Forces".
Posted by: Mman at September 18, 2013 11:15 AM
In other words, we can send a missile through a window halfway around the world, but we can't deliver a 9mm slug when and where it is needed right in our own navy base in our own capital? It is nuts.
Posted by: Mman at September 18, 2013 11:17 AM
Here are a couple of interesting editorials asking the key question:
How many must die in gun free zones before we learn?
EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban
Posted by: Chris (Mainsail) at September 18, 2013 11:33 AM