Washington navy yard killer 'planned Thailand move'

[JDGRUEN]

In other words, the typical expat!!

Perhaps closer to the truth than you imagine.

OFFICIALS: GUNMAN TREATED FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NAVY_YARD_SHOOTING_GUNMAN_MENTAL_HEALTH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-17-08-03-32

Yes - this is a nearly identical pattern to others that preceded this fellow in infamy over the last several years.

[F430murci]

In other words, the typical expat!!

Perhaps closer to the truth than you imagine.

OFFICIALS: GUNMAN TREATED FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NAVY_YARD_SHOOTING_GUNMAN_MENTAL_HEALTH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-17-08-03-32

Yes - this is a nearly identical pattern to others that preceded this fellow in infamy over the last several years.

Really, you guys think someone committing a mass killing has a mental disorder. Wow, who would have thunk that!

The problem truly is all the mental defects thinking they need and have a right to gun ownership and having virtually unfettered access to the same. I would be willing to bet these guys committing mass murder would have made same arguments as you guys and would have sworn up and down they were fit under 2nd Amendment to own guns.

[NeverSure]

In other words, the typical expat!!

Perhaps closer to the truth than you imagine.

OFFICIALS: GUNMAN TREATED FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NAVY_YARD_SHOOTING_GUNMAN_MENTAL_HEALTH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-17-08-03-32

Yes - this is a nearly identical pattern to others that preceded this fellow in infamy over the last several years.

Really, you guys think someone committing a mass killing has a mental disorder. Wow, who would have thunk that!

The problem truly is all the mental defects thinking they need and have a right to gun ownership and having virtually unfettered access to the same. I would be willing to bet these guys committing mass murder would have made same arguments as you guys and would have sworn up and down they were fit under 2nd Amendment to own guns.

It is a problem and one which no one has the answer to. Most mentally ill people aren't violent, and a lot of evil, mean people aren't defined as mentally ill.

There are laws that if a judge has declared someone incompetent, he can't own guns. Convicted felons can't own guns. Threatening people can lose you your gun rights.

But the science of mental illness is so imperfect that it's not possible to predict who will and who will not be the next bad one. Sometimes people kill out of anger or revenge but wouldn't meet the test of being called mentally ill.

I'll say it again. People who didn't grow up in the American culture can't understand us. Our ancestors went through a Revolutionary War against the King of England, and won independence, and then had a very bloody civil war, and also we don't trust our government. So there is this culture that says that turning over our guns would weaken us and empower our government. The NSA thing has just more firmly cemented that for many.

We are an independent lot, especially independent from our government, and we are willing to take the tiny risk that out of 330 million people, we might be the next victim to preserve our freedom. It's about freedom. Just as I take a calculated risk when I travel in a car, I take a calculated risk to preserve gun freedom.

I don't expect you to understand it. But you don't have to if you don't live here. In fact I'm always surprised how people who don't live here go on and on about something that's frankly none of their business.

Edited September 17, 2013 by NeverSure

[Ulysses G.]

As usual, Charles Krauthammer said it best. All these silly gun control measures will do nothing other than harass legitimate gum owners. We have a sea of guns already, so gun control is too late.

The only thing that might stop gun violence in USA, is to confiscate most people's guns like Australia has done. However, that will never happen in America.

[chooka]

What is it with this American culture of mass shootings? Sure there has been isolated incidents in other countries but in the U.S it seems as tho it is becoming a National sport. Something definitely needs to be done in regards to gun laws in the U.S. Extremely frightening.

[Credo]

I don't understand this phrase about American culture of mass killings. We don't have a culture of mass killings. It happens, but it's not a major cultural event.

I am not even sure we have a gun culture. We have a lot of guns, a fair number of gun owners and a very, very vocal group in favor of gun ownership.

[NeverSure]

What is it with this American culture of mass shootings? Sure there has been isolated incidents in other countries but in the U.S it seems as tho it is becoming a National sport. Something definitely needs to be done in regards to gun laws in the U.S. Extremely frightening.

Why are you frightened? I'm not. Are you in the US? There are 330 million people and as a percentage of the population, the danger is very remote. You're certainly much more likely to be killed in a car accident in the US than in any gun shooting, especially one of these horrible mass killings. The percentage of the population that ever sees such a thing is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Again, if you're not an American, you probably can't understand. But then if you're not American, you don't need to.

-------------

"A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany."

LINK

[F430murci]

As usual, Charles Krauthammer said it best. All these silly gun control measures will do nothing other than harass legitimate gum owners. We have a sea of guns already, so gun control is too late.

The only thing that might stop gun violence in USA, is to confiscate most people's guns like Australia has done. However, that will never happen in America.

Yeah, but the problem is it is the mentally ill that want to own and refuse to give up the guns no matter what. Cold dead hands. Haha, lunatic fringe. Normal people like me would be like yeah, whatever taken them. I don't need them.

Edited September 18, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

What is it with this American culture of mass shootings? Sure there has been isolated incidents in other countries but in the U.S it seems as tho it is becoming a National sport. Something definitely needs to be done in regards to gun laws in the U.S. Extremely frightening.

Why are you frightened? I'm not. Are you in the US? There are 330 million people and as a percentage of the population, the danger is very remote. You're certainly much more likely to be killed in a car accident in the US than in any gun shooting, especially one of these horrible mass killings. The percentage of the population that ever sees such a thing is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Again, if you're not an American, you probably can't understand. But then if you're not American, you don't need to.

-------------

"A few things you wont hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany."

LINK

The problem is that the mentally ill think they are the only ones sane.

[khaowong1]

Sorry he didn't make it over here. He could look around at the rest of us Americans here and think "maybe I'm not so messed up after all". But there is the problem with his learning the language. That is usually not the American way: just talk louder, they will understand.

That's pretty funny because it happens to me all the time. The Thai's think if they talk loud, I will understand them. I tell them in Thai, I'm not deaf, I just don't understand you.

[khaowong1]

As usual, Charles Krauthammer said it best. All these silly gun control measures will do nothing other than harass legitimate gum owners. We have a sea of guns already, so gun control is too late.

The only thing that might stop gun violence in USA, is to confiscate most people's guns like Australia has done. However, that will never happen in America.

Never.....

[mikebell]

In other words, the typical expat!!

Please elaborate !

Thainess American style. Would have felt at home here beating up elderly pedestrians.

[Morden]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

[Publicus]

I don't understand this phrase about American culture of mass killings. We don't have a culture of mass killings. It happens, but it's not a major cultural event.

I am not even sure we have a gun culture. We have a lot of guns, a fair number of gun owners and a very, very vocal group in favor of gun ownership.

There is a gun sub-culture.

I'd confirm your statement that "We don't have a culture of mass killings. It happens, but it's not a major cultural event."

Yes, the fact is the culture repulses these mass killings. All the statements Prez Obama has made about each mass killing 100% represents and speaks for the culture of the United States. That includes the need of greater and better calibrated access to and ownership of guns.

It's the subculture that always defends gun ownership whenever there is an awful mass shooting event. Yet the voice of the mass culture that speaks after any mass shooting event is for more and better laws governing access to and ownership of guns.

I don't trust my government but I don't fear it, NSA and all. The government will grab power, yes, as that is the natural tendency of government, the nature of it, but limiting the government is a political task, not a violent one. I've never feared any government official who is authorized to have a firearm.

I own one handgun which was of critical use to me one time, but it wasn't against my government.

I'm much more concerned about the fanaticism of the National Rifle Association than I am about an overly enthusiastic National Security Agency.

[Publicus]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

I like your post overall but there are some points in it that stop me ticking the "Like" function.

First and foremost I want to say the observations and comments of foreigners are welcome in the gun issues of the United States. Foreigners who have an interest and concern about the US gun subculture are almost always critical of it, as is the culture of the United States itself. So the sharing of this view is good and helpful to we in the US who are the majority on the issue.

It does matter historically however that individuals owned their own weapons during the War of Independence. It mattered less during the civil war but it still mattered a lot. It mattered a great deal throughout the settlement of the US from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as the open ungoverned and pristine frontier existed from the first settlements of the early16th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The US government, founded in 1776, wasn't able until 1890 to declare officially that there wasn't any more open unsettled frontier.

So foreigners who want to comment on the US gun subculture need to have a better knowledge and comprehension of the history of the United States with special attention to the ungoverned frontier aspect of it, which is a major aspect because it presents the historical necessity of a gun culture over a period of centuries.

Conversely, those US citizens who are a part of the surviving gun subculture also need to recognize that the open and lawless frontier is long gone. The vast majority of Americans easily know and comprehend the fact. We consider the rule of law to be of vital importance to our well being and to the realization of justice. We know the rule of law means access to guns and the ownership of guns is subject to law rather than to historical sentiment or passe' notions of self-protection and self-preservation.

Yes, there is crime and a gun can be useful for self-protection. Yes, some people like to collect guns and have an aesthetic attitude towards guns - something I think is morbid but which I also can appreciate from an aesthetic point of view (but only after some effort).

The gun subculture however manages to intimidate politicians to act against the expressed will of the mass of the US population in respect of greater and better measures concerning access to and the ownership of firearms. This is both irrational and confounding.

So any rational and consistent person in any contemporary society and civilization who wants to make observations and to comment on the US gun subculture is welcome to do so.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

I like your post overall but there are some points in it that stop me ticking the "Like" function.

First and foremost I want to say the observations and comments of foreigners are welcome in the gun issues of the United States. Foreigners who have an interest and concern about the US gun subculture are almost always critical of it, as is the culture of the United States itself. So the sharing of this view is good and helpful to we in the US who are the majority on the issue.

It does matter historically however that individuals owned their own weapons during the War of Independence. It mattered less during the civil war but it still mattered a lot. It mattered a great deal throughout the settlement of the US from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as the open ungoverned and pristine frontier existed from the first settlements of the early16th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The US government, founded in 1776, wasn't able until 1890 to declare officially that there wasn't any more open unsettled frontier.

So foreigners who want to comment on the US gun subculture need to have a better knowledge and comprehension of the history of the United States with special attention to the ungoverned frontier aspect of it, which is a major aspect because it presents the historical necessity of a gun culture over a period of centuries.

Conversely, those US citizens who are a part of the surviving gun subculture also need to recognize that the open and lawless frontier is long gone. The vast majority of Americans easily know and comprehend the fact. We consider the rule of law to be of vital importance to our well being and to the realization of justice. We know the rule of law means access to guns and the ownership of guns is subject to law rather than to historical sentiment or passe' notions of self-protection and self-preservation.

Yes, there is crime and a gun can be useful for self-protection. Yes, some people like to collect guns and have an aesthetic attitude towards guns - something I think is morbid but which I also can appreciate from an aesthetic point of view (but only after some effort).

The gun subculture however manages to intimidate politicians to act against the expressed will of the mass of the US population in respect of greater and better measures concerning access to and the ownership of firearms. This is both irrational and confounding.

So any rational and consistent person in any contemporary society and civilization who wants to make observations and to comment on the US gun subculture is welcome to do so.

I could agree with a lot of this, but not that it's a "sub culture." It is the majority. We have another thread where the US Senate refused to pass a gun show background check bill. They knew where the majority of Americans stood on that issue (wanting privacy) and they knew if they passed it they wouldn't get re-elected.

The mainstream, liberal, elitist media would like to tell us that it's a fringe group or a sub culture, but it simply isn't true. Those same elitists would like for us to believe that this issue is getting worse but I posted a link above which shows that these shootings have been dropping since they peaked in 1929. Now they just get a lot more press.

A big majority of Americans wants gun liberty, and accepts the risks that come with it.

It really can't be spun any other way, no matter how hard one tries.

[NeverSure]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

It is none of your business. That's why we have separate countries with different cultures with sovereign borders. There are tons of things I am horrified with in how various European entities run their countries, but it's none of my business so I don't come on here much complaining about it.

[Scott]

People are welcome to post in any thread regardless of their country of origin. Posters are required to follow the rules, including these rules:

5) Not to post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling.Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

It also includes this rule:

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[Ulysses G.]

A big majority of Americans wants gun liberty, and accepts the risks that come with it.

It really can't be spun any other way, no matter how hard one tries.

By jove, you are right!

Public Believes Americans Have Right to Own Guns

Nearly three in four say Second Amendment guarantees this right

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/public-believes-americans-right-own-guns.

[Scott]

A post commenting on moderation has been deleted. I strongly suggest that posters worry a lot more about their own posts and a lot less about other posters.

[JDGRUEN]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

The shooter took a shotgun to take away the guns from two armed guards. Shotguns are available in many countries around the world and could just as easily be used in the same manner as in the Navy Yard. The shooter did not buy an AR-15 or 9mm pistol - he took them from guards that he has just shot with the shotgun ... Shotguns are used the world over to protect livestock on farms and ranches from predators ... I suppose all shotguns around the world should be confiscated - correct?

[NeverSure]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

The shooter took a shotgun to take away the guns from two armed guards. Shotguns are available in many countries around the world and could just as easily be used in the same manner as in the Navy Yard. The shooter did not buy an AR-15 or 9mm pistol - he took them from guards that he has just shot with the shotgun ... Shotguns are used the world over to protect livestock on farms and ranches from predators ... I suppose all shotguns around the world should be confiscated - correct?

If I had to make such a horrible choice, I'd far rather be shot by an AR-15 than by a shotgun. Shotguns are required for deer hunting in many areas of the US because they don't travel as far on the flat lands, especially in the Great Plains. But up close, a typical 12 gauge shotgun in its smallest round, the 2 3/4" round, will hold 9 lead pellets in the 00 buck size, each the size of and traveling at about the speed of one 9mm bullet. Nine hits at once!

The shotgun may well be semi-automatic just like the AR. The sole advantage to the AR is that it has a much longer range. But that range isn't used inside a building. So you'd need 9 hits with the AR to come close to doing the damage that one shot can do with the shotgun.

I have only shotguns for home defense. They will flat-out come close to cutting someone in half.

But oh no, let's get the term "assault rifle" in the news for sensationalism, when atm I don't know that one was even used, or that the guy owned one.

What I'm reading is that the perp broke a shotgun down into 2 pieces (easy and normal for transport) and put it back together in a bathroom. Then he went on his rampage. The irony is that to those who know guns, news that it was a shotgun is far more concerning than if it had actually been an AR-15.

[Publicus]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

I like your post overall but there are some points in it that stop me ticking the "Like" function.

First and foremost I want to say the observations and comments of foreigners are welcome in the gun issues of the United States. Foreigners who have an interest and concern about the US gun subculture are almost always critical of it, as is the culture of the United States itself. So the sharing of this view is good and helpful to we in the US who are the majority on the issue.

It does matter historically however that individuals owned their own weapons during the War of Independence. It mattered less during the civil war but it still mattered a lot. It mattered a great deal throughout the settlement of the US from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as the open ungoverned and pristine frontier existed from the first settlements of the early16th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The US government, founded in 1776, wasn't able until 1890 to declare officially that there wasn't any more open unsettled frontier.

So foreigners who want to comment on the US gun subculture need to have a better knowledge and comprehension of the history of the United States with special attention to the ungoverned frontier aspect of it, which is a major aspect because it presents the historical necessity of a gun culture over a period of centuries.

Conversely, those US citizens who are a part of the surviving gun subculture also need to recognize that the open and lawless frontier is long gone. The vast majority of Americans easily know and comprehend the fact. We consider the rule of law to be of vital importance to our well being and to the realization of justice. We know the rule of law means access to guns and the ownership of guns is subject to law rather than to historical sentiment or passe' notions of self-protection and self-preservation.

Yes, there is crime and a gun can be useful for self-protection. Yes, some people like to collect guns and have an aesthetic attitude towards guns - something I think is morbid but which I also can appreciate from an aesthetic point of view (but only after some effort).

The gun subculture however manages to intimidate politicians to act against the expressed will of the mass of the US population in respect of greater and better measures concerning access to and the ownership of firearms. This is both irrational and confounding.

So any rational and consistent person in any contemporary society and civilization who wants to make observations and to comment on the US gun subculture is welcome to do so.

I could agree with a lot of this, but not that it's a "sub culture." It is the majority. We have another thread where the US Senate refused to pass a gun show background check bill. They knew where the majority of Americans stood on that issue (wanting privacy) and they knew if they passed it they wouldn't get re-elected.

The mainstream, liberal, elitist media would like to tell us that it's a fringe group or a sub culture, but it simply isn't true. Those same elitists would like for us to believe that this issue is getting worse but I posted a link above which shows that these shootings have been dropping since they peaked in 1929. Now they just get a lot more press.

A big majority of Americans wants gun liberty, and accepts the risks that come with it.

It really can't be spun any other way, no matter how hard one tries.

My god.

I could link six or seven dozen scientific public opinion polls over many years that make clear the huge majority of Americans support strengthening of gun access and gun ownership laws.

The one link I do provide reports how, despite getting 54 votes in the Senate, which is three above a majority, the gun legislation failed because the vote on such an issue requires 60 of the 100 US Senators to vote in favor. It's these kind of voting rules and procedures that continue to obstruct and thwart tighter gun access and ownership laws in the United States.

The "failed" measure reported in the link "failed" in defiance of a steadfast and resolute public opinion, which wanted the bill passed, 65% to 29%. This kind of percentage divide concerning guns is consistent among the general public, yet national legislators continue to fail to provide the supported legislation. This is due to single-issue organizations such as the well funded and fanatical National Rifle Association, which gleefully declared victory when the Senate bill linked below "failed."

The gun subculture of the United States continues to wield disproportionate control over national legislators because they vote in large numbers as a fanatical single-issue special interest group that also throws large amounts of cash into election campaigns that place an electoral bull's eye on legislators who vote for tighter gun laws.

In fact, 83% of Americans supported the specific legislative proposal that got a majority vote in the Senate yet still failed because it couldn't get the supermajority 60 US Senators voting in favor.

The vast majority of Americans have for a long time wanted tighter laws concerning gun access and ownership but can't get any such laws because of the fanatical minority gun subculture of the country.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

Lawmakers voted against a background check proposal most Americans support

Supporters of the failed expanded background check gun legislation continue to hold the edge with voters, according to a new poll.

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed.

The poll also showed a decline in overall support for expanding gun background checks, from 91 percent in a January survey to 83 percent now, though that could be due in part to a slight wording change in the question, Gallup said

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

[Loptr]

What is it with this American culture of mass shootings? Sure there has been isolated incidents in other countries but in the U.S it seems as tho it is becoming a National sport. Something definitely needs to be done in regards to gun laws in the U.S. Extremely frightening.

Mass shootings like this used to be rare in the US. Now they seem to be commonplace. Under the current administration there have been 20 such mass shootings in the last 5 years. More than the last 10 administrations combined. The real question is why.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/mass-shootings-us_n_3935978.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[Loptr]

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

I like your post overall but there are some points in it that stop me ticking the "Like" function.

First and foremost I want to say the observations and comments of foreigners are welcome in the gun issues of the United States. Foreigners who have an interest and concern about the US gun subculture are almost always critical of it, as is the culture of the United States itself. So the sharing of this view is good and helpful to we in the US who are the majority on the issue.

It does matter historically however that individuals owned their own weapons during the War of Independence. It mattered less during the civil war but it still mattered a lot. It mattered a great deal throughout the settlement of the US from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as the open ungoverned and pristine frontier existed from the first settlements of the early16th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The US government, founded in 1776, wasn't able until 1890 to declare officially that there wasn't any more open unsettled frontier.

So foreigners who want to comment on the US gun subculture need to have a better knowledge and comprehension of the history of the United States with special attention to the ungoverned frontier aspect of it, which is a major aspect because it presents the historical necessity of a gun culture over a period of centuries.

Conversely, those US citizens who are a part of the surviving gun subculture also need to recognize that the open and lawless frontier is long gone. The vast majority of Americans easily know and comprehend the fact. We consider the rule of law to be of vital importance to our well being and to the realization of justice. We know the rule of law means access to guns and the ownership of guns is subject to law rather than to historical sentiment or passe' notions of self-protection and self-preservation.

Yes, there is crime and a gun can be useful for self-protection. Yes, some people like to collect guns and have an aesthetic attitude towards guns - something I think is morbid but which I also can appreciate from an aesthetic point of view (but only after some effort).

The gun subculture however manages to intimidate politicians to act against the expressed will of the mass of the US population in respect of greater and better measures concerning access to and the ownership of firearms. This is both irrational and confounding.

So any rational and consistent person in any contemporary society and civilization who wants to make observations and to comment on the US gun subculture is welcome to do so.

I could agree with a lot of this, but not that it's a "sub culture." It is the majority. We have another thread where the US Senate refused to pass a gun show background check bill. They knew where the majority of Americans stood on that issue (wanting privacy) and they knew if they passed it they wouldn't get re-elected.

The mainstream, liberal, elitist media would like to tell us that it's a fringe group or a sub culture, but it simply isn't true. Those same elitists would like for us to believe that this issue is getting worse but I posted a link above which shows that these shootings have been dropping since they peaked in 1929. Now they just get a lot more press.

A big majority of Americans wants gun liberty, and accepts the risks that come with it.

It really can't be spun any other way, no matter how hard one tries.

My god.

I could link six or seven dozen scientific public opinion polls over many years that make clear the huge majority of Americans support strengthening of gun access and gun ownership laws.

The one link I do provide reports how, despite getting 54 votes in the Senate, which is three above a majority, the gun legislation failed because the vote on such an issue requires 60 of the 100 US Senators to vote in favor. It's these kind of voting rules and procedures that continue to obstruct and thwart tighter gun access and ownership laws in the United States.

The "failed" measure reported in the link "failed" in defiance of a steadfast and resolute public opinion, which wanted the bill passed, 65% to 29%. This kind of percentage divide concerning guns is consistent among the general public, yet national legislators continue to fail to provide the supported legislation. This is due to single-issue organizations such as the well funded and fanatical National Rifle Association, which gleefully declared victory when the Senate bill linked below "failed."

The gun subculture of the United States continues to wield disproportionate control over national legislators because they vote in large numbers as a fanatical single-issue special interest group that also throws large amounts of cash into election campaigns that place an electoral bull's eye on legislators who vote for tighter gun laws.

In fact, 83% of Americans supported the specific legislative proposal that got a majority vote in the Senate yet still failed because it couldn't get the supermajority 60 US Senators voting in favor.

The vast majority of Americans have for a long time wanted tighter laws concerning gun access and ownership but can't get any such laws because of the fanatical minority gun subculture of the country.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

Lawmakers voted against a background check proposal most Americans support

Supporters of the failed expanded background check gun legislation continue to hold the edge with voters, according to a new poll.

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed.

The poll also showed a decline in overall support for expanding gun background checks, from 91 percent in a January survey to 83 percent now, though that could be due in part to a slight wording change in the question, Gallup said

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

Hogwash. For every "scientific public opinion poll" you post, I can post similar polls supporting no additional gun legislation.

There are lies, dam_ned lies and then statistics. The results all depend on who is sponsoring the poll.

[Publicus]

No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney.

[Publicus]

First and foremost I want to say the observations and comments of foreigners are welcome in the gun issues of the United States. Foreigners who have an interest and concern about the US gun subculture are almost always critical of it, as is the culture of the United States itself. So the sharing of this view is good and helpful to we in the US who are the majority on the issue.

It does matter historically however that individuals owned their own weapons during the War of Independence. It mattered less during the civil war but it still mattered a lot. It mattered a great deal throughout the settlement of the US from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as the open ungoverned and pristine frontier existed from the first settlements of the early16th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The US government, founded in 1776, wasn't able until 1890 to declare officially that there wasn't any more open unsettled frontier.

So foreigners who want to comment on the US gun subculture need to have a better knowledge and comprehension of the history of the United States with special attention to the ungoverned frontier aspect of it, which is a major aspect because it presents the historical necessity of a gun culture over a period of centuries.

Conversely, those US citizens who are a part of the surviving gun subculture also need to recognize that the open and lawless frontier is long gone. The vast majority of Americans easily know and comprehend the fact. We consider the rule of law to be of vital importance to our well being and to the realization of justice. We know the rule of law means access to guns and the ownership of guns is subject to law rather than to historical sentiment or passe' notions of self-protection and self-preservation.

Yes, there is crime and a gun can be useful for self-protection. Yes, some people like to collect guns and have an aesthetic attitude towards guns - something I think is morbid but which I also can appreciate from an aesthetic point of view (but only after some effort).

The gun subculture however manages to intimidate politicians to act against the expressed will of the mass of the US population in respect of greater and better measures concerning access to and the ownership of firearms. This is both irrational and confounding.

So any rational and consistent person in any contemporary society and civilization who wants to make observations and to comment on the US gun subculture is welcome to do so.

I could agree with a lot of this, but not that it's a "sub culture." It is the majority. We have another thread where the US Senate refused to pass a gun show background check bill. They knew where the majority of Americans stood on that issue (wanting privacy) and they knew if they passed it they wouldn't get re-elected.

The mainstream, liberal, elitist media would like to tell us that it's a fringe group or a sub culture, but it simply isn't true. Those same elitists would like for us to believe that this issue is getting worse but I posted a link above which shows that these shootings have been dropping since they peaked in 1929. Now they just get a lot more press.

A big majority of Americans wants gun liberty, and accepts the risks that come with it.

It really can't be spun any other way, no matter how hard one tries.

My god.

I could link six or seven dozen scientific public opinion polls over many years that make clear the huge majority of Americans support strengthening of gun access and gun ownership laws.

The one link I do provide reports how, despite getting 54 votes in the Senate, which is three above a majority, the gun legislation failed because the vote on such an issue requires 60 of the 100 US Senators to vote in favor. It's these kind of voting rules and procedures that continue to obstruct and thwart tighter gun access and ownership laws in the United States.

The "failed" measure reported in the link "failed" in defiance of a steadfast and resolute public opinion, which wanted the bill passed, 65% to 29%. This kind of percentage divide concerning guns is consistent among the general public, yet national legislators continue to fail to provide the supported legislation. This is due to single-issue organizations such as the well funded and fanatical National Rifle Association, which gleefully declared victory when the Senate bill linked below "failed."

The gun subculture of the United States continues to wield disproportionate control over national legislators because they vote in large numbers as a fanatical single-issue special interest group that also throws large amounts of cash into election campaigns that place an electoral bull's eye on legislators who vote for tighter gun laws.

In fact, 83% of Americans supported the specific legislative proposal that got a majority vote in the Senate yet still failed because it couldn't get the supermajority 60 US Senators voting in favor.

The vast majority of Americans have for a long time wanted tighter laws concerning gun access and ownership but can't get any such laws because of the fanatical minority gun subculture of the country.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

Lawmakers voted against a background check proposal most Americans support

Supporters of the failed expanded background check gun legislation continue to hold the edge with voters, according to a new poll.

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed.

The poll also showed a decline in overall support for expanding gun background checks, from 91 percent in a January survey to 83 percent now, though that could be due in part to a slight wording change in the question, Gallup said

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

Hogwash. For every "scientific public opinion poll" you post, I can post similar polls supporting no additional gun legislation.

There are lies, dam_ned lies and then statistics. The results all depend on who is sponsoring the poll.

And sure enough, sooner or later the most shifty of the dubious pollsters of the conservative right and the "gun liberty" people go out of business as frauds.

Here's another hack pollster on the right who kept consistently finding Americans being in the majority for "gun liberty," when in fact the reputable polling has never found that any such majority has existed for a very long time.

The Washington Post poll isn't going out of business. Neither is the New York Times poll. Same for the Wall Street Journal poll, and the CNN poll, and the Reuters poll, the Gallup organization isn't going out of business, and the .........................etc etc etc.

Here's Why Rasmussen Was One Of The Worst Pollsters Of The Last Election, And Why It Might Be Doomed

Prominent pollster Scott Rasmussen has left the company that bears his last name, Rasmussen Reports LLC, in what the company said was over business strategy "disagreements."

But as it stands, Rasmussen as a pollster seems to be continuing down the same shaky path that it has been following for the last two election cycles.

In 105 polls of Senate and gubernatorial races released over the last three weeks of the 2010 election, Rasmussen's results came out to overestimate the Republican candidate's standing by 4 points.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-rasmussen-leaves-methodology-romney-republicans-skewed-2013-8#ixzz2cl9AS5Uu

And here is Rasmussen wrong again, published in a right wing news organization besides.

Rasmussen: Only 32% of Americans Think More Gun Laws Needed

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/Rasmussen-Only-32-Of-Americans-Think-More-Gun-Laws-Are-Needed

Edited September 18, 2013 by Publicus

[Scott]

This topic is not about polls. Stay on topic.

Continued bickering will earn suspensions.

[JDGRUEN]

Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis is alleged to have carved the words "BETTER OFF THIS WAY" into the gun he used in his shooting rampage in Washington, .D.C, ABC News has learned.

He also carved the phrase "MY E-L-F WEAPON" onto the stock of the shotgun, sources said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front

Sounds like a real stable guy and benevolent Buddhist kinda guy /sarcasm off

[JDGRUEN]

Report: Heavily Armed Tactical Team Ordered to Stand Down During Navy Yard Shooting

Multiple sources are telling the BBC that a tactical response team ready to respond to Monday’s deadly shooting in Washington, D.C. was ordered to stand down by superiors. The heavily armed team was reportedly one of the first available to aid municipal officers on the scene.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/18/report-heavily-armed-tactical-team-ordered-to-stand-down-during-navy-yard-shooting/