The Common Denominator in Mass Shootings

[oohrah]

he checks in to a VA hospital for mental health treatment because he is hearing voices, and then he buys a shotgun. We have to fix the privacy laws. Even the Navy had no knowledge which would have affected his security clearance. he has a history of other violent issues. backgrounds checks for weapons purchases obviously are inadequate. we need a national mental health database, with the proper controls.

[baldeagle]

Is there an echo in here?????

[SewTexas]

OK, I'm not going to repeat my argument against a mental health database, see the other thread. put simply it's a really bad idea, but also, thankfully I truly believe the ACLU wouldn't let it happen and I'm glad. I actually don't have a problem with HIPA laws being changed, I'm fine with that.

If the Navy didn't know about it for their security clearance, then that's their problem...and I bet someone gets their behind fired.

[baldeagle]

OK, I'm not going to repeat my argument against a mental health database, see the other thread. put simply it's a really bad idea, but also, thankfully I truly believe the ACLU wouldn't let it happen and I'm glad. I actually don't have a problem with HIPA laws being changed, I'm fine with that.

If the Navy didn't know about it for their security clearance, then that's their problem...and I bet someone gets their behind fired.

I'm curious. If they can't get access to mental health records, how do you expect them to spot the problem? Seems like a catch-22 to me.

[SewTexas]

wellllll, I remember way back when my BIL was getting a military security clearance my husband and I were interviewed.

I know several friends who don't have FB pages because they would have to open them up for their occasional clearance reviews, and others who are simply very, very cautious about their postings.

So...I would say that if the Navy did any kind of a Clearance investigation on him it should have involved some kind of interview with....say his mother?...which would have brought up a confirmation of a few basic questions to verify his truthfulness, and his mental stability.

[cb1000rider]

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.

My understanding:
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.

[texanjoker]

I worry that the peculiar dictates of what is known as political correctness is neutralizing the purpose of these heretofore seemingly prudent procedures.

The example of Major Hassan ought to cause real hand-wringing.

With all due respect JALLEN, he's been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. I don't think we owe him the title of Major any more. He's a terrorist and we don't owe him any terms of respect due military officers.

My apologies for my bluntness, but the use of a rank he doesn't deserve really steams me.

Actually, he is no longer a Major. He was stripped of his rank when found guilty.

My point exactly...(although I didn't need the court to tell me he didn't deserve to be called Major anymore)...

They have a term for Hassan inside - dead man walking.... he is a disgrace to the uniform and those that have served our great nation.

[chasfm11]

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.

My understanding:
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.

How about a couple of questions:

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.

[cb1000rider]

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.

You'd get the clearance if you had the same record at the time it was issued.
I assume you're asking for a policy of a standard review period ? That would make sense to me, but any such policy would have to involve *private* medical records. In the military, you can probably force people to disclose those records. Civilians, it's kinda hard to get them to voluntarily hand that information over and their rights are well protected.

Remember, on the criminal side he hadn't been convicted of a crime. Should we really pull clearances of people who were potentially wrongfully arrested? This is a bad example, but I don't want to give the PD the power to terminate my ability to make a living just by slipping on the cuffs. They've got enough power already.

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.

We're talking about ex-military with an active security clearance. They're probably characterized as lower risk. Want to change that and suddenly you're searching everyone almost everywhere in the government and military.

[johncanfield]

Somebody like this nut can always fly under the radar - I don't care how many databases are reported to or consulted. Maybe there will be an initiative to allow carry on military installations (thank you Clinton, I hold you accountable for the deaths at Ft Hood and the WNY .)

[bayouhazard]

I think there are two common factors.

The first is disarmed victims. When victims have the means and opportunity to fight back, the bad guys are stopped more quickly, with fewer deaths and injuries to innocents. Whether it's "gun free schools" and federal facilities, or excessive training/cost to carry in the first place, the only consistent effect of anti-RKBA laws is pain and suffering for the good guys and wins for the forces of evil.

The second is bleeding heart justice. When the criminals are coddled, they are much more likely to do more evil than repent and sin no more. We can see this in the mass murderers who had violent pasts, but were given another chance to hurt innocents. There is an old saying that those who are merciful to the cruel are destined to bring cruelty to the innocent. Giving him an honorable discharge is another example of this precept in action.

After long consideration, I think the antigunners and the mugger huggers know exactly what the likely consequences of their policies will be. It's no mistake. It's not good intentions paving the way to hell. It's an infernal plan to turn that road into a superhighway.

[stroo]

People often point to mental illness, violent video game play and ownership - legally or otherwise - of firearms. The problem with using any of these as a marker is that millions of people have or do each while a minisculely small percentage actually become mass murderers or even violent.

So while one or all of these markers are almost always present in mass murderer, they really are not predictive of who will become one.

So it seems to me the only real solution is to allow/encourage people to defend themselves again.

[rbwhatever1]

I'm with bayouhazard on this one. The only common denominator is an Unarmed Society.

[K.Mooneyham]

People often point to mental illness, violent video game play and ownership - legally or otherwise - of firearms. The problem with using any of these as a marker is that millions of people have or do each while a minisculely small percentage actually become mass murderers or even violent.

So while one or all of these markers are almost always present in mass murderer, they really are not predictive of who will become one.

So it seems to me the only real solution is to allow/encourage people to defend themselves again.

BINGO! When antis say that they used a gun and therefore guns should be banned, I counter with the FACT that there are MILLIONS of firearms in private hands and only a very small percentage of those firearms are ever used in any sort of a crime, of which murder is but one crime. That usually shuts them up, or they get snippy because they know they are wrong, but want to argue for the sake of it, or for political reasons.

[bizarrenormality]

Gun free zones are for the benefit of criminals. Period. The legislators who refused to repeal those restrictions this year showed their true colors before Man and God.