Shooting in Washington D.C

A former United States Navy reservist killed at least 12 people today in a mass shooting at a secure military facility that he entered by producing official credentials from his work as a military contractor, officials said. The shooting ended when he was killed by the police.

At Washington’s Navy Yard, the chaos started just after 8 a.m. Civilian employees described a scene of confusion as shots erupted through the hallways of the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters, on the banks of the Anacostia River a few miles from the White House and about a half-mile from the Capitol.

Police officers who swarmed the military facility exchanged fire with a gunman later identified by the federal authorities as Aaron Alexis, 34, a former naval reservist in Fort Worth. Police officers shot and killed Mr. Alexis, law enforcement officials said, but not before a dozen people were killed and several others, including a city police officer, were wounded and taken to local hospitals.

Officials said Mr. Alexis was able to drive onto the base using his access as a contractor and shot an officer and one other person outside Building 197. Inside, Mr. Alexis made his way to a floor overlooking an atrium and took aim at the employees eating breakfast below.

Three weapons were found on Mr. Alexis: an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol, a senior law enforcement officer said, adding it was unclear whether he had brought the guns with him or if he had taken one or more of them from his victims.

Officials said they were still searching for a motive as they asked the public for help by posting pictures of Mr. Alexis on the F.B.I. Web site. The F.B.I. is treating the shooting as a criminal investigation, not one related to terrorism.

Navy officials said late Monday that Mr. Alexis had worked as a contractor in information technology. A spokesman for Hewlett-Packard said Mr. Alexis had been an employee of a company called The Experts, a subcontractor on an HP Enterprise Services contract.

The tension in the city was heightened for much of the day as the city’s police said they were still unsure whether Mr. Alexis had acted alone. Officials said surveillance video of people fleeing the scene of the shooting showed two armed men dressed in different military uniforms and wielding guns. For hours, the police said they believed that there might have been three gunmen and that two of them were on the loose in the city.

Monday morning, the shooting started at 8:20 on a drizzly day at the Navy Yard, which sits at one end of the 11th Street Bridge, a major thoroughfare bringing traffic into the city from Maryland.

Really sad to hear that this has happened again

I really don't get all of this. We're one of the richest countries in the world. I know money doesn't buy happiness, but there are people who don't have food to eat, if they are from the wrong tribe might be killed or raped, and on and on.

And we have a number of people shooting random people. Makes no sense.

Yeah, it's almost like there is a social stigma around mental illness with a concurrent lack of coverage or access to mental health services, and a culture where access to guns is viewed as an inalienable right. Weird how things turn out though, isn't it?

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". ~Something a f%cking idiot said after Sandy Hook


[me]smashes his hand repeatedly with a hammer. "Damn, my hand hurts. What's up with that?"

*sigh* I hear you all, you're all right, and I wish there was some way of communicating this to these people.

Democratic Donkeys:

Yeah, it's almost like there is a social stigma around mental illness with a concurrent lack of coverage or access to mental health services, and a culture where access to guns is viewed as an inalienable right. Weird how things turn out though, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I refuse to engage in a serious debate about "gun control", because considering the acceleration of these events, I am for the complete abolition of private gun ownership in the United States. Maybe in my lifetime people will get fucking real about the major societal harm that comes from access to firearms. It's disgusting frankly, but on an average day 86 people are killed (CDC) by guns in the U.S., or 100,000 a year. I don't intend to wait around to be an advocate for abolition until, say, a child of mine, or family member, is killed by a gun. It is our problem collectively, and we all need to step up, or step back, and ask if it is really worth it to allow private citizens to own or possess guns.

(Cue the bill of rights argument, the good guy with a gun who saves the day argument, or the insurrectionist argument) All hollow reasoning.

Not gonna happen in the US of A, DD. I know far too many people that would jump on the "get yer hands off my guns" bandwagon. Of course, my interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution is that the government shall make no law to infringe upon the right to bear arms within a well-regulated militia. But who the hell am I to argue with rednecks?

Oh I know. It's the rednecks and the NIMBY principle.

Doesn't mean I'm going to hold back though. I work on the one-on-one personal level, and have good results that way.

Speaking as a gun owner, its really ridiculous how easy it is to obtain a gun. Within 15 minutes of walking into a store with a Maryland license, I walked out with a shotgun and a box of shells. And now that I'm 21, I could buy a simple .45 handgun and do some real damage, since they're small and the ammo is light (seriously, you could store 5x as many mags of handgun ammo as well as 4 additional guns when comparing to the "assault rifle versions" you hear about being banned.)

That being said, violent stuff is gonna happen regardless if there is a gun involved or not. And being constantly vigilant for violent stuff is a logistical impossibility. Two kids proved both by bombing Boston. Outlawing guns at this point is pointless because 1) Congress is not going to get its act together and strike the second amendment from the Bill of Rights, they're still high-fiving each other for making pizza a vegetable. 2) If by some miracle they did make guns illegal, pulling them from where they exist right now would be like trying to deport the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants in the country. 3) Arms manufacturing has been the best thing for our economy since WW2. As terrible as it is today, the economic backlash from this would do much more damage, even on small scale private ownership bans. 4) Crime wont magically end, even violent murderous crime - see London.

I agree that the process of getting a gun needs to be harder. But I live in a free country where so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others, I don't believe my rights should be infringed on.

Switzerland has very good gun control and very little violent crime. I think a ban on military style weapons and licence and registration for other guns would be the best system, but there is pretty much zero chance of that happening in most of the U.S., although I believe that a handful of states require a permit for handguns.

The environment for change regarding gun legislation is much better in Switzerland, da.

Gun violence in the US is actually down to historic lows. Mass shootings, which comprise a very small percentage of overall gun crimes in the US, are at historical highs.

Needless to say, if someone gets randomly shot in Detroit, it's not going to be on CNN that day, but if some guy shoots up a public event it will get immediate 24 hour coverage. The media is focusing on these mass shootings because they're good headline-grabbers, with shocking and compelling news stories that will have people watching for hours. However, to imply that gun violence in general is through the roof because of these one-off events is simply untrue. In fact, America, which ranks number one in the world in gun ownership, doesn't even rank in the top 10 in homicide rates per year per 100,000 inhabitants or even Firearm-related homicide rates per 100,000 population. Keep in mind too, a lot of countries, like Russia as a good example, don't break down homicides by category, so it is impossible to know how much gun violence is occurring in those countries, but I digress. In American we have significantly more American's killing themselves with guns than killing other Americans, our suicide by firearm rate is astoundingly high and nearly double that of our homicide by firearm rate.

Perhaps the media would be wiser to focus on that statistic when arguing for better gun control in America than the mass shooting they like to sensationalize and profit off of. Of course, they won't, because there isn't as much money to be had in doing so.

I think a ban on military style weapons and licence and registration for other guns would be the best system, but there is pretty much zero chance of that happening in most of the U.S.

Click to expand...

You bring up a point I would like to focus on, because it echos a talking point a lot of people like to use. When people talk about "military style weapons" let's all generally agree they are talking long guns like combat shotguns, assault rifles, fully automatic sub-machine guns, etc. For some reason people think these weapons are especially dangerous when compared to handguns, but lets look up the latest statistical numbers comparing total handgun homicides to total long gun homicides shall we?

Handgun Homicides
2011: 6,220

Long Gun Homicides
2011: 679

That's quite the difference, isn't it? The fact is most people who are shot and killed with firearms are done in by handguns, not long guns (a category which includes shotguns and hunting rifles), so I don't see why people are so eager to ban "military style" firearms when more people die in America from getting hit crossing the street than down the barrel of that sort of firearm. Start small, I guess?

I saw an interesting stat the other day:

First point - In the past 50 years in the US, every "mass shooting" has occurred in what was legally designated as a 'Gun Free Zone'. Think about it.

Second point - The biggest mass murders by firearms were and are always conduced by governments conduced by Governments.

Third point - If my government doesn't trust its citizens with firearms then why should the citizens trust the government with firearms?

Forth point - Gun laws only disarm law abiding citizens, not criminals hell bent upon destruction.

Fifth point - Tyrants, thugs, dictators and totalitarian governments prefer unarmed peasants.

Sixth point - According to El Presidente Obama, guns make us less safe. If that is the case, I wonder if El Presidente is planning to disarm is Secret Service security detail so that he can be safer?

Seventh point - if one were to hang a sign which said, "Gun Free Zone" on the front door of their home, how long would it be before they got robbed and brutalized?


And remember, automobiles kill WAY more people than any firearms in the US. We need to ban cars to save the children.