Active Shooter at Navy Yard in DC

Da_lucche said:
Oh they are still focusing on AR15's, but in a different (but typical) gun grabber, round about way; now saying that because Virginia does not allow purchasing of AR15's to non Virgina Residents (not sure if true), Alexis bought a shotgun instead and because of this, he only killed 12 people instead of 40,000 people if he had an AR15, so AR15's should still be banned.
Click to expand...

It allows purchase of AR15's if you have a passport or a couple of other much easier forms of ID.
 
NewGunGuy said:
True but just remember, 12 people have lost their lives today due to fact that "HUMANS" suck and are the most violent creatures on this planet.
Click to expand...
Um, complete, utter, liberal, bull!@#$

Our ability to "coexist" in quantities of billions far exceeds most, if not all, predator's population density (and by far, I mean really far). Whether Monkeys, Killer Whales, Wolves or even Dolphins, there are plenty and regular of examples of "violence for violence's sake" in the animal world. As I said, there is also our nature as a "social being" that has allowed us to overpopulate the world yet kill less and less of our total population in war with each passing century, even as our weapons grow drastically more effective on an individual basis at the same exponential rate.
 
cekim said:
Um, complete, utter, liberal, bull!@#$

Our ability to "coexist" in quantities of billions far exceeds most, if not all, predator's population density (and by far, I mean really far). Whether Monkeys, Killer Whales, Wolves or even Dolphins, there are plenty and regular of examples of "violence for violence's sake" in the animal world. As I said, there is also our nature as a "social being" that has allowed us to overpopulate the world yet kill less and less of our total population in war with each passing century, even as our weapons grow drastically more effective on an individual basis at the same exponential rate.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? War in the 20th century killed A LOT of people.

16 million dead in WWI (Military and civilian deaths that resulted from military action). WWII had deaths of at least 60 million and as high as 85 million.

This doesn't even count all the other wars that didn't involve the US.

You are probably looking at at low estimate of 100 million dead as a direct result of war in the 20th century.
 
soloman02 said:
Are you sure about that? War in the 20th century killed A LOT of people.

16 million dead in WWI (Military and civilian deaths that resulted from military action). WWII had deaths of at least 60 million and as high as 85 million.

This doesn't even count all the other wars that didn't involve the US.

You are probably looking at at low estimate of 100 million dead as a direct result of war in the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Mongol conquests killed anywhere from 10-17% depending on the source and 25-50% of population in China specifically depending on source.

Dynastic wars in China also killed 3,4,5% of the total human population in various transitions. Obviously as you go further back into history, it becomes harder to verify the numbers, but warfare, genocide and large scale population culling were not infrequent events in human history. The only thing that kept it to a dull roar was travel time.

WWII definitely puts a nice hump in the trend (at 2-3%), but I would also point out that a large number of those killed in WWII were not killed in the violence of open warfare, but the mechanized slaughter of public policy. Entirely fair to call that "violence" as well, I sure do, but it was not as a function of weaponry, but rather politics and legislative policy that such violence was carried out rather than "gun play".
 
Last edited:
cekim said:
Mongol conquests killed anywhere from 10-17% depending on the source and 25-50% of population in China specifically depending on source.

Dynastic wars in China also killed 3,4,5% of the total human population in various transitions. Obviously as you go further back into history, it becomes harder to verify the numbers, but warfare, genocide and large scale population culling were not infrequent events in human history. The only thing that kept it to a dull roar was travel time.

WWII definitely puts a nice hump in the trend, but I would also point out that a large number of those killed in WWII were not killed in the violence of open warfare, but the mechanized slaughter of public policy. Entirely fair to call that "violence" as well, I sure do, but it was not as a function of weaponry, but rather politics and legislative policy that such violence was carried out rather than "gun play".
Click to expand...

Random aside, Dan Carlin (former radio guy, now does podcasts) did a series of episodes on his Hardcore History podcast called "Wrath of the Khans" that goes into great detail about the Mongol empire. I highly recommend it (as well as his political podcast, "Common Sense")

Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website
 
cekim said:
Mongol conquests killed anywhere from 10-17% depending on the source and 25-50% of population in China specifically depending on source.

Dynastic wars in China also killed 3,4,5% of the total human population in various transitions. Obviously as you go further back into history, it becomes harder to verify the numbers, but warfare, genocide and large scale population culling were not infrequent events in human history. The only thing that kept it to a dull roar was travel time.

WWII definitely puts a nice hump in the trend (at 2-3%), but I would also point out that a large number of those killed in WWII were not killed in the violence of open warfare, but the mechanized slaughter of public policy. Entirely fair to call that "violence" as well, I sure do, but it was not as a function of weaponry, but rather politics and legislative policy that such violence was carried out rather than "gun play".
Click to expand...

Damn and you are calling me a Liberal! Your argument is completely is asinine and backwards, you call some of the deaths not a function of weaponry but rather from politics and legislative policy, how is death any damn different? So it's a different type of kill factor if a soldier puts a round in someones head than if some politician decides to bomb some civilian city that might be harboring military personnel. Death is death no matter what you try to spin it as. So next time save you hundred bucks for the payment onto this forum and use it to build a bridge so you can get over your damn self!

Charles.
 
NewGunGuy said:
Damn and you are calling me a Liberal! Your argument is completely is asinine and backwards, you call some of the deaths not a function of weaponry but rather from politics and legislative policy, how is death any damn different? So it's a different type of kill factor if a soldier puts a round in someones head than if some politician decides to bomb some civilian city that might be harboring military personnel. Death is death no matter what you try to spin it as. So next time save you hundred bucks for the payment onto this forum and use it to build a bridge so you can get over your damn self!

Charles.
Click to expand...
Um, what? [thinking]

My point was that the claim that we are some super violent species and "only man kills for sport" is a bunch of BS. I actually had no intention of calling you anything...

As an aside to that, generally speaking, despite our weapons becoming more effective on an individual basis, our open warfare is actually taking a smaller percentage of the total human population.

Dude, we agree 100% that death is death and political/mechanized killing by government is just as "violent" as warfare, the trouble is that broader society doesn't see it this way. They allow and even encourage this genocide until it hits their doorstep.

If people were more observant and distrustful of government, I believe that this "violence by policy" would be dropping along with the loss of life in open warfare.

Perhaps more importantly, even including the death by policy with open warfare, the fact that so few people die on an annual basis given our meteoric rise in population density is a credit to our status as a "social animal". You have to take our violence regardless of its source in the context of 7+ billion people and counting... Most of them living in a relatively tiny faction of the surface of the earth.

Take a pill. Wait, don't do that, too much pill popping already. [laugh]

"Don't workplace violence me bro" [wink]
 
Last edited:
partyboy424 said:
It allows purchase of AR15's if you have a passport or a couple of other much easier forms of ID.
Click to expand...

You're right.

After looking further into the story, after passing your background checks, nothing stops an out of stater from buying a shotgun or rifle (including AR15s) in Virginia besides having additional identification.

The required identification is proof of residency in another state and of U.S. citizenship, which can be items like a passport, birth certificate or voter identification card.

Alexis passed all his background checks and bought the shotgun using these these forms of ID.

The media just can't get passed the idea that Alexis PASSED on the chance to buy an AR15 and bought a shotgun instead, so they are coming up bullshit laws to fit their AR15 grabbing agenda.

MILLER: New York Times gets it wrong, media obsessed with linking AR-15 with Navy Yard shooter - Washington Times
 
mlaboss said:
Random aside, Dan Carlin (former radio guy, now does podcasts) did a series of episodes on his Hardcore History podcast called "Wrath of the Khans" that goes into great detail about the Mongol empire. I highly recommend it (as well as his political podcast, "Common Sense")

Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website
Click to expand...



The common sense show is very good.

His recent history show "The American Peril" had some nice parallels with the Syria situation I thought...
 
Da_lucche said:
Oh they are still focusing on AR15's, but in a different (but typical) gun grabber, round about way; now saying that because Virginia does not allow purchasing of AR15's to non Virgina Residents (not sure if true), Alexis bought a shotgun instead and because of this, he only killed 12 people instead of 40,000 people if he had an AR15, so AR15's should still be banned.
Click to expand...

It could have been an ice pick and they'd still be talking about the AR platform !
 
https://twitter.com/lessgovnow/status/380326474886045697/photo/1

BUcw6fKCYAAVTmz.jpg
 
ntomsw said:
What more can he do on his own?
Click to expand...

He could overturn the Clinton order that makes military installations (mostly) gun free zones. I sort of doubt that's the direction he'll take though.
 

Similar threads

Navy "intelligence"
2 3
Replies
77
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
6 shot, including 2 children, after gunmen open fire in Washington DC neighborhood
Replies
1
Views
67
Uzi2
U
  • Locked
Navy scrubbed this photo can you see why?
Replies
17
Views
737
Mountain
Mountain
'Active shooter' at University of Nevada-Las Vegas, with 'multiple victims'
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
paul73
paul73
At least 3 injured in shooting at Southern California dental office
Replies
9
Views
256
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Back
Top Bottom