Pentagon on lockdown after shooting.

- Collapse -

...

by keemilow Mar 4, 2010 5:13PM PST

amok...
not a terrorist... they do other ... stuff.. oO

hard times for americans.

- Collapse -

Re: arms

by Kees Bakker Mar 4, 2010 5:23PM PST

Americans have a constitutional rights to CARRY a firearm (even into Starbucks, if they want so).

But it seems they aren't totally free to USE it, so probably the most important role is to show you're a real American man, not a softie loony left. What are the limitations on USING the things you are allowed to CARRY?

Kees

- Collapse -

Well, shooting police officers at random is frowned on...

by EdHannigan Mar 4, 2010 8:09PM PST

I assume it was NOT a serious question.

Apparently the guy was one of those 9/11 "Truthers".

- Collapse -

Complete loon

by Mike_Hanks Mar 4, 2010 8:23PM PST

http://patterico.com/2010/03/04/pentagon-shooter-anti-bush-nut-case-and-911-truther/

- Collapse -

How can you say that?

by EdHannigan Mar 4, 2010 8:27PM PST

He seems to be simpatico with some members here.

- Collapse -

anti-GOVERNMENT loon?

by JP Bill Mar 4, 2010 8:54PM PST

lots of them around

- Collapse -

It's odd...

by Willy Mar 4, 2010 9:09PM PST

That within a short period his Amazaon profile is available. maybe, there's more to it. You would think that his profile is not public info, though I regret that I don't do much Amazon purchases other than look from time to time. -----Willy

- Collapse -

It's that darn internet thing.

by EdHannigan Mar 4, 2010 9:17PM PST

No harder to look at an Amazon profile than an SE profile.

http://www.cnet.com/profile/Willy

- Collapse -

He has a right to have a gun, same as you.

by JP Bill Mar 4, 2010 8:40PM PST

he just doesn't see the same enemies as you do.

And he's armed.

- Collapse -

Apparently the guy was one of those 9/11 "Truthers".

by JP Bill Mar 5, 2010 1:23PM PST

Correct

Bedell was fascinated with conspiracy theories,

ALSO computer programming, libertarian economics and the science of warfare.

What any of this has to do with going out and shooting people, I don't know, Since many people believe/have interests in all of these things and they don't go around shooting people.

He had Mental problems AND a gun...That's all

- Collapse -

Why is it so difficult...

by EdHannigan Mar 4, 2010 9:06PM PST

for some people to make a distinction between carrying a gun and using it to shoot innocent people? Do you drive a car? How often do you drive into a crowd of people, running them down?

- Collapse -

Oh yes, because a gun has so many other uses....

by Josh K Mar 4, 2010 10:53PM PST

....besides shooting at things.

A car is not designed to kill. A gun is.

- Collapse -

Not exactly true...

by EdHannigan Mar 4, 2010 11:05PM PST

And it is irrelevant anyway. ONE of a gun's purposes is self defense. Very often it fulfills that purpose without being fired at all.

It amazes me that people cannot tell the difference between law abiding citizens and criminals.

- Collapse -

And a car can fulfill its purpose without being driven

by Josh K Mar 4, 2010 11:48PM PST

For example if it's an antique and is taken to car shows to be displayed.

The primary purpose when USING a car is to drive it. The primary purpose when USING a gun is to shoot things.

- Collapse -

and the primary purpose of a bat is....

by James Denison Mar 5, 2010 12:02AM PST

....to hit things, preferably a baseball. So what? You can kill someone with a baseball bat, both innocent and guilty (deserving). Do you object to homeowners having a baseball bat by their bed? Will they only meat home invaders who also carry baseball bats? Hey, maybe everyone can just use foam noodles, like the bad guys are supposed to?

- Collapse -

I disagree

by EdHannigan Mar 5, 2010 12:41AM PST

A gun CAN and often DOES fulfill its purpose without ever being fired.

And again, that is irrelevant. Change it to knife and maybe you'll see what I mean.

- Collapse -

In this particular case....

by Josh K Mar 5, 2010 1:47AM PST

...it may not have made much difference since the guy was so close to the guards. But in general a gun can be used to kill from a distance where a knife cannot.

- Collapse -

so what?

by James Denison Mar 4, 2010 11:10PM PST

If it can do what it's designed to do, then great. That's why it's carried. One will carry no matter what the law in order to use improperly, another will carry according to law to use when needed and proper. What would the fate of both the guards and the shooter been if only the shooter had been armed? The guards would have been dead and the shooter gone on to shoot others or to escape. Seems to me that swift justice was accomplished. Sure saves us court costs, legal associated defense costs, incarceration costs, and any fools that might have shown up demonstrating in his favor. Over, done with, he's gone, thank God and Guns.

- Collapse -

Under what scenario....

by Josh K Mar 4, 2010 11:50PM PST

....would Pentagon guards not be armed?

If this wacko had not been armed, those two guards would be on duty today instead of recovering from gunshot wounds. Luckily the guy was a lousy shot or they'd both be dead.

- Collapse -

well then,

by James Denison Mar 5, 2010 12:04AM PST

someone should have told him he wasn't supposed to be armed. I bet that would do the trick.

- Collapse -

Or....

by Josh K Mar 5, 2010 7:02AM PST

....being that he had a documented history of mental illness and a police record, he could have been denied a permit.

- Collapse -

If this wacko had not been armed..

by EdHannigan Mar 5, 2010 1:08AM PST

But he WAS. And he could have been armed with a knife or a machete or a club, or any number of other weapons. So what? If someone is determined to commit mayhem, he will do it.

The gun is not the important part. The person is.

- Collapse -

But it's a lot easier to commit certain kinds of mayhem....

by Josh K Mar 5, 2010 5:59AM PST

....with a gun.

He had a history of mental illness, by the way:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/05/pentagon.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1

Do you think people with documented mental illnesses and a history of run-ins with the police should be able to purchase guns?

- Collapse -

No, but did he purchase it legally?

by EdHannigan Mar 5, 2010 6:05AM PST

Not that anyone can stop someone from getting a gun if he really wants one.

What's your point, make all guns illegal?

- Collapse -

I don't know whether he got it legally or not

by Josh K Mar 5, 2010 7:01AM PST

But if he did, despite documented mental illness and a police record, do you see that as a problem?

- Collapse -

Possibly...

by EdHannigan Mar 5, 2010 7:27AM PST

but a far bigger problem is that he drove across the country and started shooting people.I think that's just a wee bit more important.

- Collapse -

Our rights aren't abridged by every nut...

by James Denison Mar 5, 2010 7:44AM PST

...who may abuse them. It's a specious question or argument.

- Collapse -

Josh, you could say...

by J. Vega Mar 5, 2010 2:04AM PST

Josh, you said "A car is not designed to kill. A gun is.". You could say the same thing about a bow and arrow. That old "talking point" is getting stale.

- Collapse -

RE: A car is not designed to kill.

by JP Bill Mar 5, 2010 2:20AM PST

Using the car to seek revenge through violent actions is another matter, well-documented by J. Peter Rothe in his book Driven to Kill, Vehicles as Weapons .

In road rage it's the nut behind the wheel....With guns it's the nut with the finger on the trigger.

Road rage you get the finger, Gun Rage you get the trigger finger....Which one is more painful?

- Collapse -

The "civilian" with a gun grazed his targets,

by JP Bill Mar 4, 2010 10:53PM PST

in other words he missed.

Is that the kind of person with a gun that you want coming to your rescue?

You could end up dead instead of the perp.

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info