How about a couple of questions:cb1000rider wrote:My understanding:baldeagle wrote: The common denominator? The authorities have let us done. Time and time again people in positions of power and influence ignore the signs that indicate that something is amiss and requires further investigation. In the case of Aaron Alexis specifically, there were numerous signs that something wasn't right. How he passed a background check to get a Secret clearance is a mystery, but decision makers clearly dropped the ball.
1) He gained security clearance while working for the Navy before any problems started.
2) He was neutrally discharged after it became apparent that he wasn't a good fit for the navy. The Navy's policy on such discharges is that the security clearance remains in effect for 10 years.
3) He was arrested twice for incidents with fire arms. Although he took two rides, he never got charged with either crime.
4) He passed background checks after the above issues as relate to his employment. IE - his employers did their job in terms of qualifying him on paper.
I agree, the signs where there, but exactly what line did he legally cross that would enable "the authorities" to take away his guns? How would you fix this problem and ensure that authorities can arbitrarily restrict gun ownership on a whim?
The only incident that I've heard of reported in the media is that he told law enforcement about "hearing voices" and those LEOs followed up reporting him to the Navy.. I think a ball was dropped there. But again, most of the people on this forum don't want gun ownership qualified on being of sound mental health.
1. If I had the same record as Alexis and I were applying for a security clearance, would I be approved? I believe that the answer is no. So the criteria for keeping a clearance is different than the criteria for getting one. I believe that is a problem. For me, there is a difference between my rights as a citizen and my ability to get a security clearance. The whole idea behind the intensive background check that is supposed to be conducted on a high level security clearance is to discover anything in that background that, while not illegal, could compromise security. For me, this is a situation just like the Ft. Hood shooter where PC has run amuck.
2. Isn't the idea to control access not guns? This Naval yard is supposed to be one of the most secure facilities in the country. Yet a man, armed with a shotgun is able to take out the guards to it and take at least one of their weapons? I completely understand that it is not possible for the security teams to remain hyper-vigiliant 24/7 but the ease with which the shooter apparently took out security suggests that the base is far more vulnerable than it should be. If the gun fight had started when security was attacked, it is not a likely that there were have been such a huge loss of life. I admit that there is a lot of conjecture in my approach.
Military bases are disarmed to promote safety. The risks of events like this one are accepted over the risks of having more military personnel in possession of guns on a daily basis. OK. Then those in charge of security need to go under a microscope when catastrophes like this one and Ft. Hood happen. Instead, the focus is elsewhere. What that tells me is that there will be another incident like this in the not too distant future.
We are finally seeing some improvement in school security because we are no longer burying our heads in the sand about the possibility of school shooters. Our military deserves the same approach.