samnavy

iTrader: (7)

A military base is a "Gun Free Zone" just like a school or anywhere else that private possession of firearms is completely forbidden. Nobody is allowed to carry, period, except police or MA's in the line of duty. You still have to make a phone call and wait for police to arrive. Other than response time, it's no different than an elementary school when it comes to personal protection. A dude could walk into any commissary, Exchange food court, gym, whatever... on any military base and kill 20 people before the first phone call went out.

IN ******* FACT! Both civilian contractors and military police (MA's) are not allowed to drive through the gates armed. I REPEAT, they are not allowed to drive to work with a gun in their possession or in their vehicle. They must arm up at work and disarm before getting back in their car and driving home.

The only exception to driving through the gate with a personal firearm are:

1: Base housing residents (not BOQ or Barracks): All firearms must be registered with the National Military Security Bullshit Whatever (basically complete gov't registration) and forms signed by your own CO, and by the base CO, and by a 1/2 dozen dudes in the security dept. GET THIS ****!!! Every time you buy a new gun, you have to go through the entire process again... every single serial number and make/model of gun RE-*******-REGISTERED and the entire approval process again. AND YES, I LIVE ON A MILITARY BASE! Of course the guns have to be unloaded and the gun/ammo in a separate part of the vehicle, AND the gun has to have a trigger or cable-lock installed when transiting to/from your house to the gate. It's a gigantic ******* pain in my *** to load/unload four or five times a day while sitting in traffic.

2: Hunting or shooting sports: Lots of bases allow hunting and have shooting ranges open to military/retirees... but that shiz is on the decline because of the fairly new mando-registration and full Gov't ****-you paperwork.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Intuitively, it seems to make sense. Most people have more free time to make trouble on the weekends, and a bar-fight which escalated into shots being fired would qualify for the above list provided that a sufficiently high number of people wound up being wounded (regardless of whether anyone actually died.) An act need not be premeditated to qualify as a mass-shooting.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

im surprised that infographic isnt for chicago alone.


i think the question now is: how many people do the LA police shoot at, that have absolutely nothing to do with today's events.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Six.

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Might want to raise the # on that one... millions last I checked?


Random article/report sets it at about 13% of the population in 2012.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Which honestly is part of my point. These drugs, and the people who took them were not part of the general populace at the times we had these state institutions.

So now, we prescribe **** that really screws people up and let them go back home. 'Oh by the way honey, don't forget to stop by the gun store and pick up that nice shiny new assault rifle you've been wanting.'

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

You're right I should've known that. Ok, take away my comment related to a military base and it's still relevant.

Not quite crazy enough to want to get shot back at I'm guessing.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Probably, I shot low on the number because I didn't feel like checking.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

America's 'startling' use of mental-illness drugs: By the numbers

Little more in depth;

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/doc...n/s19032en.pdf

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I wonder if Syed was a crazy white Christian Republucan who was also a member of the NRA?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

weird, i was going to post this and figured "Nah, Joe Perez doesnt care about Black people."

Suspect Arrested in New Orleans Playground Shooting That Wounded 17 - NBC News

I made sure to post the NBC stories for you and not the same thing from FoxNews.






then related:

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Likely...

He was living the American dream anyway.

"His interests were listed as “working on vintage and modern cars,” reading religious cars, “eating out sometimes,” travel, “and just hang out in back yard doing target practice with younger sister and friends.”"

Syed Farook: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

4. and 5. arent facts about him...

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

So sue the web site.

"Farook Visited Saudi Arabia & Came Back With a Wife, a Co-Worker Says"

No doubt the pundits will claim his wife was a radical and/or he was radicalized during that 1 month he spent in Saudi Arabia. Let's ban all travel to/from the middle east.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Better yet, let's just make the whole place too radioactive to visit.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Well guess that's out... He was a US born citizen.

Fairly well done up to date blog on the shootings

I'm sorry but it doesn't look like a workplace dispute to me at least;

"As details emerge about the Illinois-born environmental health specialist, nothing has even begun to hint why a man described as quiet and polite should storm out of the San Bernardino County public health department party and return with his wife, both armed with guns and explosive devices and wearing military-style gear."

And I guess they'll be voting quickly on a re-authorization of all the NSA programs (have they really stopped??)

"San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said. It appears that Farook was radicalized, which contributed to his motive, though other things -- like workplace grievances -- may have also played a role, other law enforcement sources said."

And I guess we still want to play the workplace grievance card. Just so we don't need to admit they may be terrorists

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Seeing lots of "reasonable restriction" crap floating around today. I'm trying to resist the urge to engage, but I wonder if the progressives that tend to make these suggestions have considered how discriminatory (toward the poor) those policies would be.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

You mean the 'poor' wouldn't be able to defend themselves? Not sure I follow your point.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Right.

The wealthy, what with all their leisure time and expendable income, can easily afford to take time off work to attend training classes, pay for that training, buy the several hundred rounds of ammo required for training classes, buy quality guns from licensed dealers, schedule time for continuing education training, take yet more time off of work to pass proficiency tests, and so on. Heck, just the cost of transportation to and from all of these requirements is a burden on the poor.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

I am so sick of hearing that something discriminates against the poor. That's what being poor is. You don't get to go to the nicer restaurants, you don't get the nicest electronic gadgets, you don't get to hang out at the country club. Not having is supposed to motivate you to be not poor, not to expect free crap from everyone, or have perfectly reasonable solutions shot down because the poor don't get to participate.