Washington Navy Yard shooting: Is it time to do something about gun control?

Asked by: chrumbelievable
  • The mentally ill should not have guns, or at least be restricted in some way.

    I am not against guns, and I don't think taking guns away from everyone is going to help. However, in most of the recent major shootings. The shooter is mentally ill. They have a history of mental illness, yet they are still able to obtain guns. Do you think that that someone who hears voices in his head should have access to guns? The Navy Yard shooter admitted to veteran services that he heard voices. The mentally ill should not have guns, more for common sense than anything else, but also to prevent shootings like this one and countless others before.

  • How many more deaths is it going to take?

    After sandy hook, you would think something would have been done nationwide. Now, this happened, and it leaves the burning question for many, when will something be done? People with mental problems should not be able to bear arms. I understand that it is the 1st or 2nd amendment (I don't remember), but there should be an restriction for someone who can not mentally handle the responsibility.

  • Its Raining Guns

    Of course it's time for gun control. It is way too easy for everyone to pop into a store or online and purchase one. People should be able to defend themselves and enjoy shooting activities but rules and background checks need to be put in place. If you have a clean record then you should have nothing to worry about and the people who don't want to jump through all the hoops because they don't really care about the public safety shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

  • It is mad that they have guns 'free to use' in the USA.

    I don't have a problem with keeping and owning guns even though I live now in New Zealand and if anyone saw a gun there there would be a huge lock down. Guns in the US have became normalised like sex and violence on TV and in computer games in the rest of the world. The US has laws that say every American has the right to bear arms, but that was made a long time ago and the times have changed. Guns are now the cause of so much violence in our world and American residents being able to keep them on there bodies is just saying, 'that is OK' even though in my view I think it is not. I think every US person should have the right TO bear arms, but not keep them on them 24/7.

  • Take the guns away from the bad people and they won't commit evil

    With all the murders happening around the country, laws should have been passed against guns as soon as yesterday. The NRA said its the bad people doing all the evil things, not the guns. What if we take the guns from the bad people rather than wait for the good guys with guns to show up, which almost never happens in time.

  • Gun violence, once begun, only ends at the barrel of another gun.

    13 people died. The killing only stopped when the killer was shot. How many more would have died if the police had no weapons? How many fewer would have died if more "armed services" personnel had actually been "ARMED"? Who "disarmed" the military installations (first Fort Hood , and now the Washington Naval Yard) Why were there NO shootings like this a decade ago?

  • Gun control doesn't affect criminals and killers.

    Gun control is a very hot topic. This shooting was in fact a tragedy . The gun should not be blamed. It's the person that does the killing. Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. Gun control does not work towards criminals, killers, thugs, hoodlums, punks,etc. The mainstream media won't tell you that the Navy Yard shooter was on anti-depressants called Trazodone. Those drugs have been linked to other murders, including one mass shooting.

    Gun control is a proven failure. (Look at Mexico for example)

    THE REAL PROBLEM (possibly).
    Is probably those anti-depressants. Just by looking at the side affects of those drugs. You'll start to realize how dangerous and harmful those drugs can be towards the person taking them.

  • The authorities are at fault.

    There were many warning signs before the shooting. If only all the police and investigating authorities could have gathered all these signs together, it could have been prevented. It is a tragedy that an insane man could do this to innocent service men. He shouldnt have been allowed to buy a shotgun.

  • No way jose!

    He was mentally unstable. The media said how he heard voices in his head and moved from hotels at night. He needed help and obviously it was too late for anyone to help him. He did not even have a machine gun. Plus lets not forget about the right to bear arms in our constitution

  • The shooting doesn't prove anything

    The shooting at the navy yard was not carried out by a "machine gun". The shooter actually had a shotgun and took two handguns from guards. To stop the shooting you would virtually have to repeal the second amendment.

    Also, the shotgun was obtained illegally, just adding to the reason that we need to arm more law-abiding citizens. Aaron could not have obtained a weapon legally if he tried.

    The shooting also took place in a gun-free zone. (For civilians)

    This particular massacre does not support the gun control case at all. Nor do most of the others, so stop trying to use these tragedies as an excuse to disarm Americans.

  • 'Do something' is what people frantically say right before somebody does something stupid

    We have to look at which measures statistically stand to 'save more life', not respond to these isolated headline incidents. Washington DC as a city should 'maybe' do something, but this incident will account for less than 1% of the gun-related deaths in the nation this year, so responding nationally with laws that would have protected Washington Navy yard would have a different effect on the plains of Texas, and another different effect on the streets of Chicago, and another different effect on the Mexico-American border, and would likewise be different across all ranges of socioeconomic, geographic and cultural division in the United States.

    I'm for background checks, licensing, and even for the tracking of guns, but this guy passed a background check. Sometimes s*** happens. No wait, s*** happens every couple of minutes. Sometimes s*** makes headlines, and it's important to have the empathy to sit down and mourn for a few deaths, but it should motivate us to look at problems on a wider scale, not a narrower one.

  • He didn't even use what people and politicians think of banning.

    The Navy Yard shooter, contrary to initial false reports, used a shotgun at first, and then he picked up weapons off of dead guards. Also, according to current reports, he played violent video games continuously (which may not even be a significant factor, but I digress). In addition, he had a significant history of crimes, although nothing very major. I do agree about background checks, and that stopping crazy/criminal people from owning guns is important, but I don't think that banning weapons will solve the issue. The best fix is to stop crazy/criminal people from owning guns, and let normal, law-abiding people carry what they want.

  • If anything, it's time to arm up.

    Is it just me or is it outrageous that a military facility is unable to protect itself with armed guards. Sure, I'm sure there were some personnel that may have had access to a firearm, but how is that any military or domestic law-enforcment agency is not armed?

    If this shooting were to have occurred at a Police station, the problem would have been ended at most with 2 deaths - not 13. How so? Lets say the shooter gets 1 solid clean shot off and kill someone, by the time that gun shot ends, a plethora of PD Officers would have had their weapons drawn and (most likely) shot the shooter.

    It is then logically follows that with personnel being able to access a firearm, a situation would end quicker, and would lose many more lives.

    As for how this should apply to civilian life, it gets slightly more tedious, however restricting civilian access to firearms would simple enhance the chance of a situation like this unfolding again - perhaps with gang members, or disgruntled employees.

    As for this horrendous situation, more guns would have solved this problem much quicker.

  • No it is not

    Violence is part of the human race. The attempt to get rid of it will only make it worse. This is only one person not every one with a gun will go shoot people. In fact less than 0.01% of gun owners actually use them for violence an less than 20% of gun owner even shoot there guns.

  • Is it not obvious?

    Unfortunately, violence is an inept part of humanity. Humans aren't born as wonderful creatures, we aren't born as creatures that love. We learn to love, but we have violence built into us. It's not our fault, it's our DNA. As much as I wish that these tragedies didn't happen, and if gun control actually worked I would support it. However, when we look time and time again it doesn't. According to NBC, it took the police 7 minutes to arrive on the scene of the shooting, giving this person plenty of time to shoot. Keep in mind, this was in Washington DC, the city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. And the shooter still got in with a firearm that he later exchanged with a pistol he grabbed from a fallen officer. If a person in that cafeteria had a firearm, and possibly wounded or even just distracted him, it's possible that this wouldn't have happened.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.