Washington, DC Navy Yard Shooting

Filed in National by on September 16, 2013

This is an evolving story.  Post liveblog here.

“D.C. police are looking for gunmen they say shot 10 people at the Washington Navy Yard Monday morning. The U.S. Navy said shots were fired around 8:20 a.m. at the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters building, where about 3,000 people work.”

The situation at the Navy Yard is rapidly changing, but here’s what we know shortly after 10:45 a.m.:

  • Three shots were fired at around 8:20 a.m. at the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters building.

  • Police said there may be two shooters, though earlier police said there may have been three shooters.

  • At least 10 people were shot, including eight civilians and two police officers. Remember, this number could change as we get more information.

  • Police say four people have been killed and eight others injured. There have been rapidly changing reports about how many people were killed and injured

  • Police said one of the shooters was down, but it was unclear if that meant arrested or shot.

  • Flights at Reagan National Airport were temporarily held by the Federal Aviation Administration due to the shooting. They returned to normal a short time ago.

There are multiple reports of injuries and deaths.  NBC is reporting that at least 4 are dead.  My thoughts are with the victims and their families.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (80)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Delaware Dem says:

    Thank you NRA for this morning’s events.

  2. Delaware Dem says:

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Federal law enforcement official: Shooter at Washington Navy Yard has died.

    Good. I hope he or she burns in Hell.

  3. pandora says:

    So much for the argument about mass shootings only happening in gun free zones.

    Can we finally have a discussion on gun violence?

  4. Dana says:

    Do you believe that the Navy Yard isn’t a gun-free zone? On military bases, service members are not allowed to be armed unless they are there as military police, or are on designated training ranges. At Basic Combat Training facilities, the trainees carry their M-16s everywhere — even to church — but they are not allowed to have live ammunition off the range, and all ammunition is strictly accounted for.

    That was the situation at Fort Hood, remember, when Major Nidal Hasan went on his killing spree.

  5. Dana says:

    Perhaps you’d like for this to be a discussion thread on repealing the Second Amendment.

  6. pandora says:

    Police briefing:

    1 officer shot
    1 shooter dead
    Potentially have 2 other shooters (1 being a white male in a khaki tan military uniform and the other being a black male, approx. 50 years old wearing military uniform)

  7. Dorian Gray says:

    @Pandora… don’t bother. I mean DC has strict gun laws but it doesn’t matter. Virginia might as well be the wild west. They just recalled to reps in Missouri because they support universal background check… not making any guns illegal… not taking guns… just background check. This is a losing issue for rational people.

    The 2nd amendment is vague enough and there’s no point in wasting breath. Maher said it on his show Friday. We’re the gun country. There’s no way round it at this point. I don’t like it any more than you do. But it’s a decided issue.

  8. pandora says:

    Sad, but true, DG, but I’ll dismantle the NRA’s talking points every chance I get.

  9. Dana says:

    Mr Gray: It was actually two Colorado state senators who lost recall elections due to their votes on gun control.

  10. Dana says:

    Mr Gray wrote:

    The 2nd amendment is vague enough and there’s no point in wasting breath.

    The Second Amendment says:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    What part of “shall not be infringed” do you find to be vague or difficult to understand?

  11. Dorian Gray says:

    Like… the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun…

    …or we can stop giving bad guys guns… either way…

    I mean we can have SWAT and para-military police have firefights after massacres….

    …or just try and stop the massacres…

  12. Dorian Gray says:

    How many gun owners are in a regulated militia?

  13. Dorian Gray says:

    Dana… I know you are a quasi troll type and I shouldn’t engage and all… but read the sentence that is “The Second Amendment.” It’s two clauses, yes? What does the first clause mean? Does the second clause have anything to do with the first? I say it meets the definition of vague…

    As 100 random people in the street what “a well regulated militia” means in the USA in 2013. See how many answers you get.

    How much regulation is OK to be “well regulated”. Do you need to be in a militia to own the gun?

    So yeah, it’s vague…

  14. Delaware Dem says:

    Dana, a well regulated militia…. you always ignore the WELL REGULATED MILITIA part of the Second Amendment. Always.

  15. Dana says:

    Mr Gray wrote:

    I mean DC has strict gun laws but it doesn’t matter. Virginia might as well be the wild west.

    Virginia’s murder rate, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, was 3.7 per 100,000 people, while the national rate was 4.7. Washington, DC’s 2011 murder rate was 17.44 per 100,000.

    Comparing a state and a city is a lot like comparing apples and turnips, but it’s hard to call a state with a murder rate below the national average as somehow being the wild west.

  16. Dorian Gray says:

    I think any form of the verb “to regulate” is invisible… especially when it’s qualified. Not only is it suppose to be regulated… but WELL regulated… then there’s this business about militias…

    So… what part of this explanation don’t you understand?

  17. Geezer says:

    Dana: What part of “it’s a decided issue” do you not understand?

  18. Dorian Gray says:

    I wasn’t taking about murder rate I was takling about firearm availability without much “regulation” at all. This is very well documented. Virginia is the Wal Mart for alomost ever criminal syndicate on the eastern seaboard.

    They don’t stay in VA. Who would?! It’s a fuckingt dump. They collect guns down there and take them to Wilmington, NYC, Baltimore, Atlanta…

    Your murder rate statistic is meaningless in this context.

  19. cassandra_m says:

    Virginia is always one of the top states exporting its easily gotten guns to places like DC and Maryland and New York, among others for criminal use.

  20. Geezer says:

    The Wild West is the wrong analogy. Virginia is the gun shop of choice for people in Northeastern cities who have a harder time buying guns legally in their home states.

  21. Geezer says:

    I would take exception to the portrayal of Virginia as “a dump.” If you want to see a dump, drive around Los Angeles.

  22. Dorian Gray says:

    You know, I know I’m not suppose to do this. But reading Geezer comment nailed it home. I made a comment that we are the gun country. It’s a decided issue and there’s no point wasting too much time on it.

    And because he/she is such a fucking cunt, he needs to make some out of context retorts that are total red herrings. What a complete fucking douche bag.

  23. Dana says:

    The Second Amendment has been tested in court, and the Supremes have said that the militia clause does not restrict the independent clause. In McDonald v Chicago, the Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states. The Amendment does not state that the militia are the people who have a right to keep and bear arms, but the people.

    Of course, the militia were all able bodied adult white males in 1789; perhaps you believe that the Second Amendment means that only able-bodied white males have the right to keep and bear arms?

  24. Dorian Gray says:

    I’ve been to some nice places in Virginia. Falls Church, Charlottesville come to mind… but honestly all the other places aren’t for me. That 5 hour drive through western VA to the Tennessee border if nothing but creepy backwoods shit…

  25. Geezer says:

    Dana: Well, now that you’ve brought in the militia, maybe we should rewrite the 2nd Amendment. That part doesn’t apply in the modern era.

    I happen to think that if we put the 2nd Amendment up for a plebiscite, it would pass pretty easily. But even if it didn’t, it’s in the Bill of Rights because it’s considered fundamental. It is, if you will, a civil right to be allowed to arm yourself in this country.

  26. Geezer says:

    “That 5 hour drive through western VA to the Tennessee border if nothing but creepy backwoods shit…”

    You might like it better if you knew where to stop for ‘shine.

  27. Dana says:

    Mr Geezer wrote:

    Dana: Well, now that you’ve brought in the militia, maybe we should rewrite the 2nd Amendment. That part doesn’t apply in the modern era.

    That is something I would consider a very honest response to liberal beliefs concerning gun control: it recognizes that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment, and that if you seriously believe that right should be restricted or eliminated, then the only (legitimate) way to do so is to amend or repeal the Second Amendment.

    I very seriously doubt that a repeal of the Second would ever pass; it would almost certainly never receive the 2/3 supermajority requirement in both Houses of Congress, and the odds of it being ratified by 38 states are about the same as anyone breaking Johnny Vander Meer’s record.

  28. Jason330 says:

    Idiot,

    He said “we should rewrite….” Rewrite.

    Jeez, you are dumb.

  29. Dana says:

    Mr Gray wrote:

    That 5 hour drive through western VA to the Tennessee border if nothing but creepy backwoods shit…

    I grew up in a small town, and couldn’t wait to get out of it, leaving at 18. It took me 32 years of living in urbanized areas — Lexington, Kentucky, Hampton, Virginia, and New Castle County, Delaware — to realize just how good I had it in rural America.

    We have a lot of guns up here in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, (population: 21,318) but we’ve had a whopping three murders so far this century, and only one of those was committed using a firearm; the other two were a strangulation by a boy of his own mother, and a stabbing after an argument over a girl. Our crime rates are low, and there’s a lot of good, green land around us. My humble abode, which I bought for $87,500, would have cost thrice as much in Conshohocken in 2002, when I bought it. I knew more of my neighbors in two weeks here than in two years on Hockessin.

    Suum cuique pulchrum est, I suppose.

  30. Dana says:

    Mr 330, perhaps you might consider that “to amend or repeal the Second Amendment” would cover the objection you made.

  31. Jason330 says:

    “I happen to think that if we put the 2nd Amendment up for a plebiscite, it would pass pretty easily. ”

    Idiot – Just make up questions that you want to answer. Pretend some liberal said it. That all you do anyway.

  32. Dana says:

    Mr 330 wrote:

    “I happen to think that if we put the 2nd Amendment up for a plebiscite, it would pass pretty easily. ”

    Idiot – Just make up questions that you want to answer. Pretend some liberal said it. That all you do anyway.

    You do realize that you were quoting Mr Geezer, don’t you? :)

  33. Jason330 says:

    Idiot – Yes. Geezer’s comment that you obviously neglected to read.

  34. Dana says:

    Well, then, Jason, if you do not believe that raising the issue of the Second Amendment is germane to Pandora’s comment, “Can we finally have a discussion on gun violence?” just what do you believe would fall within the limits of such a discussion?

    If the Second Amendment is not a reasonable part of the discussion, then we must assume it will continue to stand and be a bulwark against whatever restrictions you would like to put on firearms. That pretty much limits the discussion to the personality and motivation of the killer (or killers; there may be two.)

  35. Jason330 says:

    That’s right. Backpedal jerk.

  36. Liberal Elite says:

    @g “Dana: What part of “it’s a decided issue” do you not understand?”

    It’s hardly decided. We’re just one or two USSC justices away from a complete mind shift on this issue. It wouldn’t be so very hard to read the second amendment correctly… as it was actually written… the way an honest and reasonable person would.

    I believe that someday, we’ll join the rest of the civilized world. It’s just a matter of time.

    Maybe what the gun control advocates need to do is to arm all the blacks and hispanics in America. That’s what got gun control rolling in the first place.
    …a step backwards to take three steps forward.

  37. Dana says:

    Mr 330, you do an absolutely excellent job of calling people names, and it’s your site, so you are perfectly free to do so. Trouble is, you seem to do somewhat more poorly at actually discussing the issue.

  38. Jason330 says:

    Libeal Elite – You are very intensive to the delicate feeling of America’s responsible and law-abiding gun nuts – who are all very responsible and sane up until the moment they are not.

  39. Jason330 says:

    Fuck you dipshit. You are a dishonest fuckwad who has no interest in “discussing the issue.”

    You only want to see your brilliant parroting of wingnut memes in a comment thread. Have a ball, and I’m going to keep calling you out for the dishonest loser that you are.

  40. Dana says:

    The Liberal Elite wrote:

    It wouldn’t be so very hard to read the second amendment correctly… as it was actually written… the way an honest and reasonable person would.

    As it was actually written? It was written by men living not very far from the frontier, men to whom people defending their homes from the Indians and needing to hunt for their food were real, close concerns. Does anyone think that they wouldn’t believe that every (free white) person should have the right to own firearms?

  41. cassandra_m says:

    Mr 330, you do an absolutely excellent job of calling people names, and it’s your site, so you are perfectly free to do so.

    So I guess this to mean that we’re lucky that you aren’t here calling J330 “Raaaaaacist“, huh?

  42. Dana says:

    Mr 330 proves my point:

    Fuck you dipshit. You are a dishonest fuckwad who has no interest in “discussing the issue.”

    You only want to see your brilliant parroting of wingnut memes in a comment thread. Have a ball, and I’m going to keep calling you out for the dishonest loser that you are.

    Translation: you really have no actual arguments, but yes, you are very good at calling people you don’t like names. :)

  43. Jason330 says:

    This gun violence is just a natural disaster like a flood. It is God speaking through the founding fathers. We are just a bunch of idiots who have never, not once, changed anything in the Constitution.

    So, unlike Australia and Canada, we can’t do anything about it because …God and also tyranny.

  44. pandora says:

    Geez, is there something between everyone having a gun and no one having a gun? That’s where the debate needs to begin.

    Instead, we get the predictable 2nd Amendment nonsense. And yes, WELL REGULATED is a key part of that amendment. Why do gun people always ignore that part of their beloved amendment? You wanna discuss the 2nd Amendment, then discuss it in its entirety.

    And I agree with Liberal Elite, and would add… one more incident like Sandy Hook and opinions will change overnight. Especially if we keep letting Wayne LaPierre run his mouth.

  45. jason330 says:

    Idiot – The last thing I’m going to do is get in a gun control pissing match with a fucking brain dead moron like you.

  46. jason330 says:

    Fellow Contributors – Dana is out for 48 hours. The bodies are not even cold and I have to read his NRA bullshit, here? No way. He can take it to Delaware Politics for all I care.

  47. Delaware Dem says:

    Dana and Jason330 really don’t like each other. ;)

  48. pandora says:

    Latest update: at least 8 dead and 16 wounded. This breaks my heart.

  49. pandora says:

    Oh no. New figures: At least 12 people dead.

  50. socialistic ben says:

    “And I agree with Liberal Elite, and would add… one more incident like Sandy Hook and opinions will change overnight.”

    Im not too sure about that. :/
    We thought “one more incident like Tuscon” would finally wake people up… then “one more incident like Aurora” and people will finally realize…. After Sandyhook, what do we have? Officials who support gun control were RECALLED. Confed states are letting guns get even more out of control. I have a feeling that everyone who thinks more guns are the answer sees all these tragedies as validating their dogma. How do you deal with people who have the polar opposite view of reality?

  51. Jason330 says:

    They managed it in Canada and Australia. Those countries, however, are committed to protecting their quality of life while we are committed to protecting the profits of gun manufacturers.

  52. Jason330 says:

    President Barack Obama called it a “cowardly act.”

    Burn!

    Actually, we are the cowards who allow all of this. We let the gun lobby and brain dead idiots who can’t construct a coherent thought on their own consistently off the hook. We act as though gun violence is natural part of life because we are not only cowards, but lazy cowards.

  53. redc1c4 says:

    if you are going to base an argument on the phrase “well regulated militia”, it would be helpful for you to understand what they writers meant by those words, rather than making up your own, self serving, definition.

    but then you wouldn’t be able to use the phrase as grounds for more of your fascist gun control fantasies.

  54. jason330 says:

    “fascist gun control fantasies” Right. Like fascist Canada and fascist Australia. Total tyranny in those hell holes.

  55. luagha says:

    A ‘well-regulated militia’ means a well-trained militia who can move as a unit, fire to a commanded point of aim, and who will not break under fire.

    You would be more familiar with the opposite term, an ‘irregular militia’. The most likely fiction you would have come across the term in is Sherlock Holmes’s books, movies, and cartoons; where he maintains what he calls the ‘Baker’s Street Irregulars.’ They are his pack of orphans and street kids whom he pays to keep him informed and whom he can marshal into a dangerous slingshot-wielding cadre at a moment’s notice. Alas, they didn’t show up in the recent Sherlock Holmes movies.

    ‘Irregulars’ can be dangerous troops to fight, but have a tendency to break and run. Famously, President Theodore Roosevelt fought in the American First Irregular Cavalry in his famous charge up San Juan Hill. The First Irregular Cavalry was made up of highly skilled volunteers – all famous lawmen, trackers, sharpshooters, and rangers – but because they had never had the opportunity to train together, they were called ‘Irregular Cavalry’ as opposed to ‘Well-Regulated.’

    Currently, the army of a state is called the ‘regular army’ (you can look up ‘regular army’ on Wikipedia) while guerilla forces who may work for a state at some remove, like terrorist groups with deniable contacts or the Civilian Irregular Defense Groups trained by the Green Berets in Vietnam, are called ‘irregulars.’ Someone who has been through US Army Basic Training is called an ‘Army Regular.’ Someone who has been through Officer Training School is called a ‘Regular Officer.’

    If you check Dictionary.com, the first definition is ‘to control or direct by a rule, principle, method’, the third definition is ‘to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch’, and the fourth definition is ‘to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.’ Obviously the meanings are related, but the ‘well-regulated militia’ in the Second Amendment pertains to the third and fourth. Justice Scalia specifically refers to these definitions in his statement in the Heller decision. Other dictionaries will have more references as to this standard use of the term and will specifically state its relation to machineguns (a ‘regulated’ machinegun uniformly shoots to the same point of aim) and militias (able to move in unison under command, will not break under fire, shoots at designated targets when commanded).

  56. jason330 says:

    Indeed. We must keep the irregulars at a constant state of readiness. Not telling when fascist Canada might try to invade.

  57. meatball says:

    Australia’s gun laws seem pretty darn restrictive vs Canada’s which are pretty similiar to our own.

  58. meatball says:

    And the VA laws were tougher than the DE laws until the repeal of the “one handgun a month” law. Now the two states gun laws are nearly indistinguishable. Va always required a two level background check, one state and one fed. Delaware has only this year started to require the state check again.

    Federal law also dictates that only federally licensed gun dealers deal guns and out of state purchases of handguns are not permitted except via mail order from FFL dealer to FFL dealer except for the “gun show loophole” that also is technically allowable in DE.

  59. Liberal Elite says:

    @sb “Confed states are letting guns get even more out of control. I have a feeling that everyone who thinks more guns are the answer sees all these tragedies as validating their dogma. How do you deal with people who have the polar opposite view of reality?”

    There’s a good reason why the following stereotype exists: gun nut == cowardly racist

    There’s not a lot one can do about racism, but the cowardly part is pretty easy to deal with. We just need to make gun ownership more scary than non-ownership. It’s as easy as that.

    The original push for gun control came in response to blacks who started to carry guns. If every black in the South had a gun and an assault rifle, they’d have gun control in a Yankee minute.

    It really is mostly about racism…

  60. luagha says:

    You haven’t been to the south recently, have you? The black people there have all the assault rifles they want, because anyone there has all the assault rifles they want. Why do you think the national trend is for black people to move back to the South?

  61. cassandra_m says:

    Because their families are there and it is cheaper. It certainly isn’t because of all of the guns you can eat for free.

  62. Liberal Elite says:

    Sorry. Gun ownership rates by race are NOT as you portray. Not in the least.

    But suicide rates are well correlated with gun ownership rates. Gun nuts seem to be happy to exit this Earth early…

  63. luagha says:

    If you are claiming modern day Jim Crow activity to keep guns out of the hands of blacks in the south, I want to hear about it.

    Right now, that happens in California where you need ‘good cause’ to be signed off on by the sheriff, and it just so happens that only the rich, famous, and connected seem to have ‘good cause.’

  64. Liberal Elite says:

    You know what I mean.

    I was in Ohio last Friday, and I was at a site where they issue CWPs.

    There were a bunch of crusty old white men all driving rusty buckets in line to get their precious permits. They had nothing worth protecting (as far as I could see), but darn-it-all they were going to spend their last dollars protecting whatever crap they did have.

    Didn’t see any blacks in line…

  65. Rusty Dils says:

    Excerpts from President Obama’s speech on the 5th anniversary of the financial crisis tastelessly given just minutes after the killings at the Navy Yard. (And yes, despite what everyone says, the President did already know about the killings before he gave his speech)

    “Let me start by reminding everyone what I said when I was running for office in September 2008, I told everyone If you let me spend 11 trillion dollars of the nations wealth, and you let me put the nation into an 11 trillion dollar deeper financial hole, then I will promise to lower the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 7.3% in my first 5 years, and I have done it.” Now that’s progress, Thank You, Barry Obama (I think he was still going by Barry back then, but who knows, he changes his story so often, I don’t even think Michelle can keep track anymore)

  66. Delaware Libertarian says:

    Liberal Elite:

    I know where your “But suicide rates are well correlated with gun ownership rates. Gun nuts seem to be happy to exit this Earth early…” comment comes up. There was a study that, by state, shows the states with the most suicides tend to have greater guns. But do you actually know why?

    Those states are northern rural states (Montana, Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Wyoming) that have a lot of individuals living isolated from society. They don’t live in large communities (churches, work, families, book clubs, sports leagues, etc.) that can give a social support network. Living isolated gives people ownership of their problems too, so they feel more at fault (and not at society) for their short-comings. Also psychiatrists and mental health specialists (like all specialists) are lacking in these areas, because there are not enough aggregate patients to sustain a practice there (and that’ll be true even if we have a national health care system, the government has many programs to try get doctors over there, but few ever bite. Today’s health professionals eschew living in flyover country.) And these things matter more than the method of suicide.

  67. Delaware Dem says:

    I love Rusty’s little digs. If President Obama had cancelled the Economic Speech in favor of a speech on gun violence, Rusty would then attack the President for politicizing the tragedy. And if you need any proof that Rusty did not actually watch or read the entire speech, it is this: President Obama did address the shootings at the Navy Yard during the speech.

    But why is that a big deal to Rusty? Rusty opposes all gun control legislation and regulation. Indeed, he supports doing away with any existing impediments to gun ownership and in fact he wants everyone everywhere armed to the teeth. Given that position, such mass shootings as what happened today at the Navy Yard will become and are becoming a daily occurrence. In his mind, it is the price of doing business, or as he would say, the price of freedom. Soon, Presidents and everyday citizens will go about their day barely disturbed that 1300 people were just gunned down in mass shooting somewhere. It is the inevitable result of encouraging gun ownership and gun violence.

  68. meatball says:

    “The original push for gun control came in response to blacks who started to carry guns. If every black in the South had a gun and an assault rifle, they’d have gun control in a Yankee minute.

    It really is mostly about racism…”

    Really, Cassandra? Are you gonna allow this?

    “Given that position, such mass shootings as what happened today at the Navy Yard will become and are becoming a daily occurrence. In his mind, it is the price of doing business, or as he would say, the price of freedom. Soon, Presidents and everyday citizens will go about their day barely disturbed that 1300 people were just gunned down in mass shooting somewhere. It is the inevitable result of encouraging gun ownership and gun violence.”

    Hasn’t gun violence continued to go down in this country, except for a few hot spots like Chicago and Philadelpia? More guns isn’t the answer any more than less guns is the answer.

  69. Delaware Libertarian says:

    Actually homicides in Philly are at a forty five year low and have been trending down for a while.

    http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-01/news/40288167_1_crime-city-homicide-figures-analysis

    The country is reflective of Philly too. It’s just that Wilmington is bucking the trend in terms of crime statistics.

  70. 1_Easy_Target says:

    Jason330
    ““fascist gun control fantasies” Right. Like fascist Canada and fascist Australia. Total tyranny in those hell holes.”

    When Australia instituted their gun registration, they promised that it would not lead to confiscation. Very shortly after the majority of guns were registered, gun confiscation was announced. Needless to say. many people were not very pleased with their government.

    Since there are so few guns in Australia, the violent crime must have almost disappeared, right?

    Wrong, The choice of weapons has changed to knives, clubs, etc. but there are now many more instances of home invasions, muggings, rape and assault than previously. They are not alone, though. Great Britain is now discussing limiting kitchen knives to 3″ as long knives are now being used so commonly in assaults and domestic violence.

    Great Britain, which was once famous for it’s police only carrying billy clubs, is now equipping their offices with select fire, fully automatic capable rifles to help combat the huge influx of automatic weapons being imported and used by the terrorists and the criminal element of their society. Up until they disarmed the general public, Great Britain was a very safe place to live (unless you lived in Belfast).

  71. 1_Easy_Target says:

    Canada recently stopped their registration of long guns. The last poll of Canadian police officers showed the 81% didn’t believe the long gun registry was effective in helping to prevent crime or identify criminals.

  72. Liberal Elite says:

    @1EaTet “Wrong, The choice of weapons has changed to knives, clubs, etc. but there are now many more instances of home invasions, muggings, rape and assault than previously.”

    Well that’s certainly misleading. Australia is a great place to visit (been there, done that), and it’s FAR safer than the US for the general population.

    Their homicide rate is less than 1/3rd what it is in the US… Their robbery rates are lower than the US.

    Here’s a read for you:
    http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html
    “The public’s perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased. Victimisation survey data also do not illuminate the most significant recorded increase in violent victimisation, against children, as they are collected less frequently and only apply to those aged at least over 15 years. The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault – especially within the family – but this requires further investigation to examine how many recorded violent crimes against children relate to current and/or past events and of the relationship to the offender.”

    Says not a thing about guns…. Nada.

  73. Liberal Elite says:

    @1EaTet “Up until they disarmed the general public, Great Britain was a very safe place to live”

    More utter crap. Have you actually been there? I’m there every year..
    It’s safer there than walking around in the US. It really is.

    Here’s a read for you: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
    “We rate the claim False.”

  74. Liberal Elite says:

    @meatball “Really, Cassandra? Are you gonna allow this?”

    But it’s true.

    Here’s a read for you: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
    “It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.”

  75. meatball says:

    That third post with my handle at 9:29pm wasn’t from me. Someone hijacked my awesomely, awesome moniker while I was cooking dinner.

  76. cassandra_m says:

    Meatball, that’s strange — since it is posted from an IP address that has other posts from you and the email is the same one. Any chance someone at your location just posted while you were logged on?

  77. Jason330 says:

    Mike P posted from his driveway.

  78. cassandra_m says:

    That would be Mike P’s *router* posting from his driveway, I think.

  79. meatball says:

    That really is strange. Totally don’t remember posting that, but I checked my last paste and sure enough. Damn, I gotta get more sleep. Talk about embarrassing.