Washington navy yard killer 'planned Thailand move'

[metisdead]

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/

Topic regarding this now running here:

Reports: SWAT team thwarted from stopping Navy Yard gunman

[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

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.

I too have things that I don't like abut European 'entities' and am willing to discuss them with anyone from any country, something I do with my friends from the US an around the Western world.

[metisdead]

A post has been edited to remove comments intended to drive the topic into an off topic discussion. Posts replying to the off topic baiting comments have been removed.

[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

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.

Good post. Thank you.

The very first time that I visited the US (Miami), I was warned by our hosts to assume that every car carried a gun. In particular, I was told not to do what we did back home and idly look at people in other cars as we waited at traffic lights! It was something of a shock to learn how different things were over there but it seems to be much worse now.

I often discuss the subject of guns with a good American friend of mine. He has a knowledge of guns and I perceive a need to have one at home here. He has explained the background to the American philosophy in much the same way that you do. He recognises the need for change in order to at least reduce the present incidence of gun massacres. I know that there are many shootings that don't fit the definition of 'massacre' but I think that is a more difficult problem to solve given the number of guns in private hands. My focus is on the massacres which seem to be more frequent now as, perhaps, those with the appropriate mentality see each new one as an opportunity to gain fame in the same way. It's a crying shame that our cousins in the US, or the politicians, can't see that some action is needed. We suffered two massacres in the UK. The first involved semi-automatic rifles which the gunman took from his club. The law was quickly changed to ban them. In the second, young students were killed at school with a handgun. They too were quickly banned. Very few people in the UK objected to the changes in the law and therein lies the difference. Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice.

[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

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.

Good post. Thank you.

The very first time that I visited the US (Miami), I was warned by our hosts to assume that every car carried a gun. In particular, I was told not to do what we did back home and idly look at people in other cars as we waited at traffic lights! It was something of a shock to learn how different things were over there but it seems to be much worse now.

I often discuss the subject of guns with a good American friend of mine. He has a knowledge of guns and I perceive a need to have one at home here. He has explained the background to the American philosophy in much the same way that you do. He recognises the need for change in order to at least reduce the present incidence of gun massacres. I know that there are many shootings that don't fit the definition of 'massacre' but I think that is a more difficult problem to solve given the number of guns in private hands. My focus is on the massacres which seem to be more frequent now as, perhaps, those with the appropriate mentality see each new one as an opportunity to gain fame in the same way. It's a crying shame that our cousins in the US, or the politicians, can't see that some action is needed. We suffered two massacres in the UK. The first involved semi-automatic rifles which the gunman took from his club. The law was quickly changed to ban them. In the second, young students were killed at school with a handgun. They too were quickly banned. Very few people in the UK objected to the changes in the law and therein lies the difference. Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice.

"Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice" Sounds like a shotgun ... the same weapon the Navy Yard shooter used...

All that you write may be what the people of your country want -- but America has been and still is a drastically different county in the last 240 years or so of history ... We don't want what you want... thus the reason we have a separate country .. Many in your country now are worried about cultural replacement by Muslims -- I'll be glad to tell you how to handle that - but it is not really my business..

[Scott]

An Off-topic post has been deleted. The topic is not about the 2nd amendment and who does/doesn't trust the gov't.

Stay on topic, please.

[Morden]

Quote JDGruen:

"Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice" Sounds like a shotgun ... the same weapon the Navy Yard shooter used...

All that you write may be what the people of your country want -- but America has been and still is a drastically different county in the last 240 years or so of history ... We don't want what you want... thus the reason we have a separate country .. Many in your country now are worried about cultural replacement by Muslims -- I'll be glad to tell you how to handle that - but it is not really my business..

No, not the same weapon at all. He used a Remington pump action. They are illegal the UK. Also in the UK applicants for shotgun licences get home visits from the police who check that the safe storage regulations are followed. All part of a rigorous background check prior to a Magistrate deciding whether of not to grant a licence.

You can be as different from others countries as you like but does that include doing nothing to stop your frequent massacres?

This thread isn't about Islam but you might like to start one. Before you do, take a look at the growing Muslim population in your own country.

[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.

Good post. Thank you.

The very first time that I visited the US (Miami), I was warned by our hosts to assume that every car carried a gun. In particular, I was told not to do what we did back home and idly look at people in other cars as we waited at traffic lights! It was something of a shock to learn how different things were over there but it seems to be much worse now.

I often discuss the subject of guns with a good American friend of mine. He has a knowledge of guns and I perceive a need to have one at home here. He has explained the background to the American philosophy in much the same way that you do. He recognises the need for change in order to at least reduce the present incidence of gun massacres. I know that there are many shootings that don't fit the definition of 'massacre' but I think that is a more difficult problem to solve given the number of guns in private hands. My focus is on the massacres which seem to be more frequent now as, perhaps, those with the appropriate mentality see each new one as an opportunity to gain fame in the same way. It's a crying shame that our cousins in the US, or the politicians, can't see that some action is needed. We suffered two massacres in the UK. The first involved semi-automatic rifles which the gunman took from his club. The law was quickly changed to ban them. In the second, young students were killed at school with a handgun. They too were quickly banned. Very few people in the UK objected to the changes in the law and therein lies the difference. Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice.

This obscene vote against the expressed demands of almost 9 of every 10 Americans occurred the past April.

The article below states in specific terms how the fanatical minority "gun liberty" subculture, lead by the wildly irresponsible leadership of the National Rifle Association, is able to stop legislation that tries to address the exact mass shooting event the United States experienced yet again last week.

The repeated expressed will of the overwhelming number of the American people continues to be thwarted by a small minority subculture of fanatics who see automatic weapons as the solution to everything, to include their own perceived "cultural replacement" in other countries by members of a certain specified religion.

An overwhelming majority of Americans — 86% — support the defeated measure, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week.

Even among members of the National Rifle Association, 74% support criminal background checks for all gun sales, according to another survey.

So proposed tighter gun laws get the Senate rule that requires that 60 of the 100 US Senators vote in favor instead of the mathematical majority of 51 of the 100 US Senators. It's a crime anyway that the proposed legislation, explicitly supported by 86% of the US public, couldn't get the support of 60 Senators.

Why Congress Was Too Wimpy To Pass A Gun Control Bill That Almost Everyone In America Wants

So how is it possible that something supported by almost 90% of Americans could fail to get even 60 votes in the U.S. Senate?

The Senate on Wednesday defeated a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks for gun purchases, marking an ignominious end of a

four-month national debate over how to curb the gun violence epidemic in the United States.

There are several reasons for the bill's defeat, most of which come down to political calculation.

Here are three key factors that played a role:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-background-check-bill-failed-2013-4#ixzz2fJWW7xX5

[Scott]

Off-topic.

[Scott]

There is a thread about gun control and voting. This isn't it.

Posts deleted. Stay on the topic of this OP.

[midas]

in a 2007 security check of Alexis it had uncovered a 2004 arrest on a charge of malicious mischief, but said that the Pentagon decided to grant him clearance anyway.

Why ?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-navy-shooting-20130916,0,7505707.story

[beechguy]

in a 2007 security check of Alexis it had uncovered a 2004 arrest on a charge of malicious mischief, but said that the Pentagon decided to grant him clearance anyway.

Why ?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-navy-shooting-20130916,0,7505707.story

My guess is that he was only arrested, not prosecuted and convicted. Not very well explained by the media, is that clearances are granted by a federal agency, not the Navy. And, it is not necessary to have a clearance, to be granted a CAC card that allows access to a base. But, I'm surprised more recent information didn't raise issues with the guy.

[Ulysses G.]

Friends say that Alexis was into Buddhism and Thailand for the Thai women. Isn't everybody?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/18/friends-say-aaron-alexis-was-into-buddhism-for-the-thai-women.html

[Steely Dan]

Friends say that Alexis was into Buddhism and Thailand for the Thai women. Isn't everybody?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/18/friends-say-aaron-alexis-was-into-buddhism-for-the-thai-women.html

If the following is true he also dabbled in the religion of peace. Yet to find anything more, but apparently he set up a webpage in the name of Mohammad Salem.

http://www.debka.com/newsupdatepopup/5796/

[JDGRUEN]

Quote JDGruen:

"Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice" Sounds like a shotgun ... the same weapon the Navy Yard shooter used...

All that you write may be what the people of your country want -- but America has been and still is a drastically different county in the last 240 years or so of history ... We don't want what you want... thus the reason we have a separate country .. Many in your country now are worried about cultural replacement by Muslims -- I'll be glad to tell you how to handle that - but it is not really my business..

No, not the same weapon at all. He used a Remington pump action. They are illegal the UK. Also in the UK applicants for shotgun licences get home visits from the police who check that the safe storage regulations are followed. All part of a rigorous background check prior to a Magistrate deciding whether of not to grant a licence.

You can be as different from others countries as you like but does that include doing nothing to stop your frequent massacres?

This thread isn't about Islam but you might like to start one. Before you do, take a look at the growing Muslim population in your own country.

If what you describe above you call Freedom ... then go to it... It is not remotely what we call Freedom in America ... And if you like what is going on in the Tower Bridge community - then by all means embrace it - live it...

[JDGRUEN]

Quote JDGruen:

"Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice" Sounds like a shotgun ... the same weapon the Navy Yard shooter used...

All that you write may be what the people of your country want -- but America has been and still is a drastically different county in the last 240 years or so of history ... We don't want what you want... thus the reason we have a separate country .. Many in your country now are worried about cultural replacement by Muslims -- I'll be glad to tell you how to handle that - but it is not really my business..

No, not the same weapon at all. He used a Remington pump action. They are illegal the UK. Also in the UK applicants for shotgun licences get home visits from the police who check that the safe storage regulations are followed. All part of a rigorous background check prior to a Magistrate deciding whether of not to grant a licence.

You can be as different from others countries as you like but does that include doing nothing to stop your frequent massacres?

This thread isn't about Islam but you might like to start one. Before you do, take a look at the growing Muslim population in your own country.

One more comment... there is no news article indicating that the Navy Yard Perp even used the pump action capability of the shotgun ... so it would seem that a double barreled shotgun or even a single barreled shotgun would have done the trick ... for shooting the security guards and taking their weapons... Therefore any allowance for shotguns of any type in the world could trigger (pardon the pun) an invasion of a workplace ... So we are back to slingshots, crossbows, longbows, rocks, stones, swords, long knives, short knives to protect what we (as the human race thinks is important)... is that right? Or just let anarchy reign ?

[Morden]

JDGren, thanks for your insight.

The 'Tower Bridge community' must the group of people who work the drawbridge! If you want to promote yourself as an expert on British cultural affairs, do your homework properly - and start a thread on it rather than divert attention from the subject of this one.

The freedom that you love seems to include paranoia regarding your government and the rest of the world, the determination to continue to go in fear of being shot even in your workplace, rampant racism and aggression against other nations. Get on with it if you will.

Back on topic, CNN reporters were saying yesterday that the gun was a Remington pump action. If you are better informed and believe that a single or double barrelled shotgun could have been the weapon used in the killing of twelve people, show your source and correct CNN.

It's nonsense of you to suggest that those who believe that the US gun laws are facilitating massacres and need to be changed are against guns all together. The correct balance would be the right guns in the right hands in the right circumstances. The US in general fails on all three counts and that is why gun crimes there, and particularly massacres, are so common. If you think the present state of affairs is acceptable then good luck to you.

[Ulysses G.]

The freedom that you love seems to include paranoia regarding your government and the rest of the world

Anyone who watches the news knows that there is darn good reason to be skeptical of our government and the rest of the world.

A single or double barrelled shotgun could easily kill 12 people. It is just common sense. The killer would just have to reload more often which only takes a second.

[Scott]

Off-topic, bickering posts and replies removed.

Please feel free to post your opinion of the OP, but personal comments directed at other posters will be removed.