Active shooter incident reported at Washington Navy Yard

[MAKO69 186]

Active shooter incident reported at Washington Navy Yard at 0820 hrs. Police are still searching for shooter(s). Reported building to be US Navy HQ.

 

 

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/23441014/navy-active-shooter-at-washington-navy-yard

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/police-search-for-active-shooter-on-grounds-of-washington-navy-yard-in-southeast-dc/2013/09/16/b1d72b9a-1ecb-11e3-b7d1-7153ad47b549_story.html

[+Dave 2,322]

4 dead six wounded.

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-killing-at-least-4?lite

[MAKO69 186]

Police say 2 or 3 shooters have killed 4-6 , and injured 8-10 people on grounds of Washington Navy Yard. Latest at least 1 shooter subdued, police still searching for 1 maybe 2 other shooters.

[Nesher 628]

sad new, fast recovery for the wounded..

 

RIP.

[MAKO69 186]

DC police: At least 12 killed in Navy Yard shooting, FBI handling investigation.
 

 

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/23441014/navy-active-shooter-at-washington-navy-yard

[+Brain32 265]

Just saw it on the news here, I can't f believe it...

[macelena 1,070]

Just saw it on the news here, I can't f believe it...

 

Why not? This shit happens every once in a while. Even if it is not the classic spree shooting (wich it seems to be) there is no place safe from violence to erupt, and innocents wich couldn´t imagine this happening to them not coming home ever again. Hope they nail all of them soon.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Not to drop again the debate about weapons and ring the bells at the NRA, but what to think about a sentence like FoxBoston's: "A federal law enforcement official told the Associated Press that Alexis is believed to have a criminal record and to be a holder of a concealed carry weapon permit." !?!!??!

 

Is it only on this side of the Ocean that it sounds totally insane !?

[+Typhoid 231]

The last cannot be accurate.

 

A criminal record would preclude a concealed carry permit.

 

If it turns out to be accurate, then the Sheriff's dept that issued the permit has a LOT of questions to answer!!!

 

Update: he has an arrest record, he would not have a criminal record unless convicted. Not clear about his Navy record.

 

The quoted source is being very careless with their language.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Typhoid

[MAKO69 186]

Contract worker behind Navy Yard shooting rampage was a former Navy member. Gunman has record of mental illness.

 

Apparently he was a contract worker who had access to most of the facilities with his Govt. issued ID. I think the Feds will be reviewing who and how these contractors get contracted.

 

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/10011705705897/gunman-in-navy-yard-shooting-was-in-navy-reserves/

[macelena 1,070]

Not willing to get this to the topic of gun legislation, but this comes to prove that it is not a matter of harder gun laws, but to enforce those you have already. The guy should have never been able to get the guns, let alone a job and clearance to the facility. A paperwork mess or maybe even a legal loophole may have been the difference wich could have prevented this from happening.

 

Not that anything will bring back the people being mourned today. All that is left is to hope for the wounded to recover and the families of those killed to get over their losses the best way they can.

Edited September 17, 2013 by macelena

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

At least, the relatives of the victims at Fort Hood could have the murderer tried, could hear from him the reasons for his deeds (insane reasons, but reasons anyway), could get a chance to hear remorse and receive apologises (not been the case of course, but a chance anyway, important for those families believing in forgiveness and redemption). Here, nothing of that. The mourning shall be harsher.

[JediMaster 451]

Contract worker behind Navy Yard shooting rampage was a former Navy member. Gunman has record of mental illness.

 

Apparently he was a contract worker who had access to most of the facilities with his Govt. issued ID. I think the Feds will be reviewing who and how these contractors get contracted.

 

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/10011705705897/gunman-in-navy-yard-shooting-was-in-navy-reserves/

 

How? It's easy. If you're former military you have a 90% chance of getting a job with a gov't contractor as long as you're remotely qualified. End of story. Medical history isn't looked at, just service history.

 

If you're NOT former military, it's far harder. Forget getting a civilian job, of course. I think I knew maybe half a dozen civilians that were neither former military or a relative of one out of the hundreds I knew well enough to talk to them about their background. The deck is just stacked against you so ridiculously high you're not getting in. The US gov't doesn't hire the best qualified people, it hires the best qualified veterans...even if the vet spent only 2 years 15 years ago doing the job roughly equivalent to this one. The private citizen who's spent the last 20 years in the private sector doing that job alone doesn't get a second glance.

[MAKO69 186]

How? It's easy. If you're former military you have a 90% chance of getting a job with a gov't contractor as long as you're remotely qualified. End of story. Medical history isn't looked at, just service history.

 

If you're NOT former military, it's far harder. Forget getting a civilian job, of course. I think I knew maybe half a dozen civilians that were neither former military or a relative of one out of the hundreds I knew well enough to talk to them about their background. The deck is just stacked against you so ridiculously high you're not getting in. The US gov't doesn't hire the best qualified people, it hires the best qualified veterans...even if the vet spent only 2 years 15 years ago doing the job roughly equivalent to this one. The private citizen who's spent the last 20 years in the private sector doing that job alone doesn't get a second glance.

Here we go again.

I was making a statement, not asking a question. I am prior service I know this already that is why If you read and understood you would see it's a statement what I think the feds should/will do, "I THINK the Feds will be reviewing who and how these contractors get contracted."

[JediMaster 451]

In the future, then please end your posts with "this is a statement and I would prefer it if everyone would read it but NOT make any comment on it, even if the person responding is not responding only directly to me but is rather making a statement themselves for others to read, because it's ok for me to do it but not for them".

 

That would clear up a lot of confusion. Or, you could simply NOT make the statement if you're concerned someone might reply to it in a way you're not 100% happy with.

 

Because we all really want to know what YOU speculate is the proper path the "feds" should or will take, but obviously no one really would be interested in anything I might have to say.

 

Again, my apologies for not doing things exactly the way you would like them to be, I know it's your internet and all.

[MAKO69 186]

In the future, then please end your posts with "this is a statement and I would prefer it if everyone would read it but NOT make any comment on it, even if the person responding is not responding only directly to me but is rather making a statement themselves for others to read, because it's ok for me to do it but not for them".

 

That would clear up a lot of confusion. Or, you could simply NOT make the statement if you're concerned someone might reply to it in a way you're not 100% happy with.

 

Because we all really want to know what YOU speculate is the proper path the "feds" should or will take, but obviously no one really would be interested in anything I might have to say.

 

Again, my apologies for not doing things exactly the way you would like them to be, I know it's your internet and all.

 

I'm just going to repost my statement:

 

I was making a statement, not asking a question. I am prior service I know this already that is why If you read and understood you would see it's a statement what I think the feds should/will do, "I THINK the Feds will be reviewing who and how these contractors get contracted."

 

Always just seems like you picking what I post apart. Go ahead and post all you want I just don't think you ever understand where I'm coming from.