The Common Denominator in Mass Shootings

[Pacifist]

The two common denominators in all of the recent massacres are mental disease/disorder and liberalism (which many consider to be one in the same). We should all endeavor to support the treatment and eradication of both.

[baldeagle]

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 ?

No secret clearance should last longer than a year without a review. Human beings don't remain static for long periods of time, and life changes can easily be the catalyst for violating clearances that one could before have been trusted not to violate.

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.

There are thousands and thousands of jobs out there. If you want one that requires a clearance you'd better bend over and drop trou. If you don't want to do that, you don't get the job. Don't tell me about your rights, because when it comes to getting a job that requires a clearance, it's not an issue of rights at all. It's an issue of the requirements to get the job. If you don't like it, apply at McDonalds. Or Boeing. Or Starbucks. Or any other place that doesn't require the hoops that a clearance requires.

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.

It's not a question of talking about your ability to make a living. It's a question of being able to trust you with a secret clearance. I would expect the powers that be to read the police reports and make sound judgments about their meaning. If they don't feel comfortable making a decision, seek more information until they are comfortable. Call the guy in and ask him to explain the incident. Call the witnesses and question them.

His clearance should have been yanked when he told police he was hearing voices. And he shouldn't have gotten it back until and unless he cleared a psych exam.

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

I don't understand that at all. It's their job to remain hyper vigilant 24/7. If not, they're just placeholders, not security guards. Go work at McDonalds. We'll find someone who understands what it means to stand a watch. I wouldn't cross the street to spit on a military man on fire who doesn't understand and respect what it means to stand a watch and to protect your brothers in arms. There are no excuses, and if they make them, I'd kick their butts into the middle of next week. You darn sure had better be awake and alert and at the ready if you're standing watch where I am. I'd bring a man up on charges of negligence for that.

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.

Several things are clear. Decision makers were criminally negligent. The man should never have had access to the base at all. Security on the base was sub par. Otherwise he never would have made it past the first guard he shot, because the second one would have taken him out.

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.

That's a false characterization. I have a secret clearance. I don't expect anyone to assume I'm safe. It's their job to ensure that I am. Their failure to do their job cost them their lives and the lives of several others. I'd not be surprised for the first man in a firefight to go down, but the second one had better be gaining the advantage and holding off the enemy while calling for help. They're supposed to be trained to do that.

None of these issues have anything to do with the insanity of disarming military personnel on their bases or the outrageous attitude that people should not be able to defend their lives against criminally insane individuals.

[rbwhatever1]

There are a lot of "mentally limited thinking" people in Government positions. We should start screening those people first if we want to strip away peoples Natural Rights by handing that decision over to the medical profession. About 500 of the treasonous pigs in Washington would be a good place to start.

[C-dub]

Doesn't anyone remember that this administration is telling everyone that performing background checks is discriminatory?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/ ... ny-blacks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BStacks]

Hasan does not fit into the same category as ANY of the other mass shooters in the US.

That was not a crazy action, it was mandated obedience. He was true to his faith and is a hero for it(perspectively).

[cb1000rider]

Doesn't anyone remember that this administration is telling everyone that performing background checks is discriminatory?

Fine detail... "...in the case of job applications...."

One might think that background checks for minimum wage jobs that do not take the nature of the crime into consideration might lead to more government assistance.

I don't see anywhere where the Feds have made the argument that background checks for security purposes are discriminatory... Although it's probably not a big leap.

[CHLLady]

Having had the opportunity to fill out character references (for their security clearance) for friends who applied for federal jobs, I know it asks you specifically of you have any reasons to not recommend this person for this gov. Position and gives plenty of room to explain why.

I believe it should be a crime to lie on this background form and it should say so in large font at the beginning. I don't recall if it did say so, but I don't think it did. (Fortunately, I have no concerns because my friends are exceptional people. )

[The Walrus]

Doesn't anyone remember that this administration is telling everyone that performing background checks is discriminatory?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/ ... ny-blacks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're the same idiots who say ID is required to buy a gun from a government licensed dealer but oppose Texas requiring ID to vote in a government election.

[cb1000rider]

They're the same idiots who say ID is required to buy a gun from a government licensed dealer but oppose Texas requiring ID to vote in a government election.

I think both groups use that one for their own purpose. It's a restriction and fits with a particular political agenda. In reality would it change anything? Probably not.

[MechAg94]

Remember that the Wiki leaks guy who was found guilty was talking about getting a gender change operation. IMO, there is another person who probably should not have had the security clearance he had.

Of course, all this would have ended sooner had military personnel with firearms been allowed to carry ammo. Our military bases should not be gun free zones.

[The Annoyed Man]

As everyone wrings their hands trying to figure out why someone would shoot lots of people and how we can prevent mass shootings, it occurs to me that there is a common denominator. Each time a shooter is identified and their background investigated, a disturbing pattern emerges. A troubled person who frightened some who knew him, who had run-ins with authorities and who had mental disturbances that either went completely untreated or poorly treated.

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.

As our society declines more and more into the abyss of non-accountability, we can expect these occurrences to happen more frequently. Always something other than the "leaders" responsible for the failure will be blamed for the incident. And nothing will change.

The problem is that the "decision makers" who dropped the ball will demand more "accountability" from every day citizens instead of focusing on their own job performance. We've been told every step of the way that each new draconian measure will "fill in the gaps" and stop people from "slipping through the cracks." It never does.