Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Meet Aaron Alexis - Washington Navy Yard Shooter

Aaron Alexis

Huffington Post


Aaron Alexis has been identified by police as the dead Washington Navy Yard shooter, NBC News reports.
Alexis, 34, originally of Fort Worth, Texas, recently began working at the Navy yard as a civilian contractor, the station reported. The FBI confirmed his identity in the afternoon.
Alexis was armed with an assault rifle and a handgun, two law enforcement officials tell the Washington Post. One of the sources said he also had a shotgun. All the weapons have reportedly been accounted for. His aunt, Helen Weeks, told the paper that he grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y. with his mother, Sarah, and father, Anthony.

At least 13 people were killed -- including Alexis -- and more were wounded at the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters building after at least one gunman opened fire after 8:20 a.m. Monday, a Defense Department official said.
UPDATE: At a 10 p.m. Eastern press conference on Monday, Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that law enforcement has "the single and sole person responsible" for the shooting in custody, dispelling rumors that a second suspect is still at large. 

26 comments:

  1. So a former Navy Reservist who has security clearances from the government and who attends Buddhist services. But has had at least one public violent incident involving a firearm.
    Time will tell what parts, if any of this story are true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CNN's already reporting that it looks like he used a shotgun and two handguns rather than an AR-15 like we were told yesterday (or an AK-47 in one report). Time will tell which version of everything turns out to be true. In the mean time, Feinstein and others are taking full advantage of the possibly incorrect reports.

      Delete
  2. He got into a secure gun-free zone in the middle of a city-wide gun-free zone, and you think gun control would ever work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right professor(?), blame lax security on gun control. HA HA HA HA HA

      Delete
    2. I'm not surprised that you missed the point. Gun control failed to provide sufficient security to justify itself.

      Delete
    3. That's one way to look at it, another would be that once again one of you law-abiding gun owners went berserk and killed people.

      Why don't criminal gun owners do any mass shootings? Why is it always you guys who do that shit?

      Those are the questions you should be asking.

      Delete
    4. As I've pointed out elsewhere, this man gave law enforcement at least two good opportunities to deal with his problems. That's where the failure lies.

      Delete
    5. "Why don't criminal gun owners do any mass shootings? Why is it always you guys who do that shit?"

      Ah, yes, it's always us. It's never people who should be ineligible under current law, but on whose prohibition the police have dropped the ball. It's never prohibited people who fail to buy a gun, so they steal one. etc.

      Delete
    6. Gun control is not designed to stop a single nut shooter in an individual instance, but lesson shootings throughout society. On site security is the responsibility of the security personnel on site. Obviously THEIR security measures were not tight enough. Or maybe being human, they did the best they could. Good gun control would have spotted this nut job, as a nut job, before he got to the site. We always find out these nuts gave plenty of signs BEFORE they attack.

      Delete
    7. Another moronic comment about gun free zones. There are 100 million gun free zones in the US, and 99,999,999 did not have a massacre on Mon. Gun free zones is the term used by idiots to derail the discussion.

      Delete
    8. Jim, law enforcement already had opportunities with this shooter, and they did nothing significant. We don't need more gun control. We need to act when those signs are seen.

      Anonymous, what are you talking about?

      Delete
    9. Anonymous seems to miss the irony of his statements--There are 65-100 million gun owners in the US and only one of them committed a massacre, but Mike wants to disarm half of them--Jade 75%.

      Delete
    10. Professor(?), you won't allow the techniques that would expose these people. Again, the police won't do their job, so you will with your gun. Thanks for dodging the issue.

      Delete
    11. You guys are such hypocrites, Greg and T. When law-abiding gun owners do things wrong with guns you don't want them charged with felonies. You want leniency, anybody can make a mistake or have an accident, you cry. But when one of them does a mass shooting, you disown him and blame the cops for not having done their jobs.

      I'm the one calling for a one strike your out rule, not you. I'm the one calling for strict qualifications before someone can own a gun, not you. You guys are the ones who fight for the lax laws that allow these incidents to keep happening.

      Delete
    12. Mikeb, stop lying. I've said all along that I want a proper investigation, rather than merely arresting someone on speculation. I've said that accidents or unintended discharges or whatever term you want to use are different from intentional acts.

      That's the point. This shooter shot out the tires of a parked car because he had a weed up his ass. That wasn't an accident. It wasn't negligence. It may have been delusional. That should have been investigated and prosecuted.

      There's nothing lax about this. What I support is due process. But when someone does something intentionally or delusionally wrong, that person should go through the process and upon conviction or adjudication should be punished or treated.

      Delete
    13. So, let me ask you this. The guy shot out tires in anger but was not convicted of a felony. If there were a may issue policy in place for gun ownership, would the local law enforcement be right in denying him? There are many reasons why something like that might not result in a felony conviction, but that doesn't change his unfit status, right?

      Delete
    14. You're asking to change the rule for everyone based on this one extreme case which we are looking at in hindsight.

      As we have told you before, there are reasons we don't give police chiefs and sheriffs discretionary authority over other rights, and the same reasons apply to your "may issue" permitting proposal.

      Delete
    15. "based on this one extreme case"

      Now, how could you possibly read my blog every day and say something like that? And you wonder why I call you a liar and a twister of the truth?

      Delete
  3. "The gunman who killed 12 people at a Navy base in Washington entered with a valid pass and a legally purchased shotgun, the FBI said Tuesday.
    Once inside, Aaron Alexis, 34, may have obtained a handgun after he began shooting, said Valerie Parlave, assistant director of the FBI's Washington field office.
    He brought the shotgun legally in neighboring Virginia, and there is no evidence he had an assault rifle as some reports have said, Parlave addded."
    http://news.yahoo.com/washington-gunman-had-shotgun-valid-entry-pass-fbi-183523324.html

    As often happens with a developing news event, some news types listen to the wrong guy and print it or sometimes make shit up and assume it must be true. Oopsie..... So we now have someone with no recorded convictions who bought a shotgun after undergoing a background check through an FFL. He even recently had his government Secret clearance renewed. I wonder what new laws will be proposed to prevent this from happening again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been proposing one all along. It's my number one. It surely would have disallowed this dangerous man the right to buy guns legally.

      Delete
  4. This clearly demonstrates that many who have guns should not have them. From the gunsucks who post here, we can see that many gunsucks are possessed by evil spirits with pathological and insane ideas. EVERY gun owner should be psychologically evaluated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are you going to find couch time for 100,000,000 or more Americans?

      Delete
    2. Even a cursory screening would disqualify the worst of the worst. But you don't want that, do you Greg? Why don't you tell us why?

      Delete
    3. The only people who would be screened out are the ones who will already be caught by the ATF form--in other words, the ones too far gone to answer simple questions. But even dangerous people are mostly sane enough to say that, "why no, I'm not planning to hurt anyone."

      Delete
    4. What happens at these supposed screenings, Mike? Do you think he would show up with poop smeared all over his face? This man was able to get government security "may issue" clearance, and show up to work everyday and function as a contributing member of society. What powers do you think psychologist have that they could pick the crazy guy out of a room of a thousand people based on a cold interview?

      Delete
    5. By "cursory screenings" I was referring to his case in its entirety. If, somehow the psyche exam didn't disqualify him, his criminal behavior with guns would have.

      Delete