Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis: Buddhist convert with a hot temper
Authorities now discount earlier fears that Aaron Alexis had accomplices as he inexplicably brought carnage to the Washington Navy Yard.
The picture emerging about him defies all who may have assumed that the gunman was motivated by Islamist extremism (he was a convert to Buddhism, which normally enjoys a more pacifist reputation), or that he was some white survivalist (he's black). But Alexis did appear to have anger management problems related to post-traumatic stress provoked by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. He complained about the Navy and saw himself as a victim of discrimination.
Here's one of the better background accounts I've seen... from the L.A. TIMES:
This is an issue where I go with the DEMS and believe the G.O.P./TEA/N.R.A. folks are on the wrong side of this and that is:
We need to require background checks for ALL gun/rifle/assault rifle purchases, including gun-shows, etc. The info required for the background check should include the person's mental health history.
This issue is important, and is NOT designed to take away guns from ordinary, sane Americans who have all the wheels on their trolley touching the rails.
Yes, many folks have some sort of mental issue and take meds for their problem. The difficulty is when these folks decide on their own that they no longer need their meds and stop taking them and spiral back to their former out-of-balanced hearing voices, etc., etc., mentally unstable selves, that seems to be the M.O. for these types of folks who do these types of shootings.
NOTE: As far as I have read, none of these types of shootings [schools, malls, churches, etc., etc.] have been committed by some drug dealer, or the criminal element.
They've been committed by folks who are a tad bit unbalanced and who do need help, as this man apparently needed. This is a common-sense regulation of guns/rifles and does NOT violate the 2nd Amendment, in my opinion.
Tue, Sep 17, 2013 10:49am
Maybe Bill Clinton's institution of "gun bans" on military bases should be ended.
As the Times editorial board put it: "Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood."
The same theme ran true at the Navy Yard in DC on September 16. Police were called after the shooter opened fired, and reports indicate it took approximately 3-7 minutes for them to arrive. Each minute is an eternity when a lunatic with a weapon decides the "gun free zone" rules do not apply to him.
Except by the very newspaper you cite - The WASHINGTON TIMES -- the shooter might have acquired more weapons from his victims. (Which seems contradictory to what you cite above):
INVESTIGATORS: AARON ALEXIS MAY HAVE PICKED-UP and USED VICTIMS' WEAPONS.
"Authorities investigating Monday's D.C. shooting spree believe the gunman brought a shotgun, legally purchased from a suburban Virginia gun shop, to the Navy Yard and acquired additional weapons at the scene, according to three law-enforcment officials..."
Tue, Sep 17, 2013 12:25pm
...so what would he have done if ALL on base were armed? Taken all weapons?
Tue, Sep 17, 2013 1:05pm
Here we see yet another example of Christian bigotry: Attempting to blame Buddhism for this incident. The murder rate from Buddhist and even Muslims is a lot better than the murder rate from Christians who have often attempted to convert using the sword.
Earl: "The Times?" There is only one "The Times" in this country: The New York Times. In Britain, The Times of London. Nowhere that despicable Moonie rag, except to right-wing nut jobs.
Tue, Sep 17, 2013 2:28pm
Mike you must be a psychologist, since all mental illness is based on the use of meds and when they become self-medicated, they start hearing voices. Interesting. The issue is that mental illness is as varied as any physical illness. According to your theory, a tumor would be treated the same as a cold; a broken arm receives the same treatment as scrapped knee. Obviously, you would want all mental illness confined to hospitalization because they all 'hear voices.' In your theory, anyone who has ever been treated for anything (postparum depression, ADHD, counseling after a death/divorce; bi-polar; schizophrenia; etc.) would all be treated the same, as a potential violent criminal. Ergo, you might as well make the ban universal, because the government would find anything in your records to label you as unfit to purchase a gun.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Sep 17, 2013 3:27pm
Arthur: My point is, MANY folks do NEED psychotic drugs to maintain an even keel. These folks are not required to take their meds in order to be out in public vs. having to live in a mental institution. Many have, unfortunately later, stopped taking their meds and spiraled back into the psychotic issue they had before.
Problem is they don't seem to have the ability to realize that they need to go back on their medication. Instead they get sicker.
It is my opinion, as well as that of many others across the nation, that such a person has no business owning a gun or a rifle. They are a danger to themselves and to others and as such, should not be allowed to legally buy or own such weapons.
THAT's what I meant. Sorry if that offends you, but that's what I believe [and many other Americans believe] should be done to help stop this insanity of mentally sick folks going around shooting up schools, malls, churches, colleges, and now military bases, because of some perceived slight they recieved by someone.
I'll let the medical community debate and decide which folks fit this scenario. If you read my words carefully, I'm speaking about someone who needs to stay on these meds forever, but again I'm not an expert, so we should allow the medical folks to make that determination.
Tue, Sep 17, 2013 8:50pm
Thankfully, they shot and killed the @#%!(&. Unfortunately, he killed 12 people before they got him, but at least we won't have to endure another show-trial like the ones in Denver and Tucson.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Sep 17, 2013 10:21pm
Mrpizza: The first thought I had after the shock of hearing this happened was, what about their eternal souls? Same question for the killer... what about his eternal soul? He's dead, yes, as are the other 12. Possibly 13 folks who might not have known The Lord & who might spend an eternity in torment. This wasn't a ruthless killer, but some sick person who apparently needed serious help, both mentally & spiritually. I'm shocked at your callous words. Somehow, I believe The Lord is mourning the loss of
possibly 13 souls.
Yes in one sense it makes things easier for the nation that he died. Unfortunately our society will wring its hands rather than make it more difficult for someone like him to get a gun/rifle. Also how many folks out there need serious mental health, but aren't getting the help they need. Hopefully Obamacare will help with this last issue.
Wed, Sep 18, 2013 5:05am
MFD: I agree with you completely about their eternal souls, which in some ways makes you a better man than I am. I'm just so disgusted with how the victims are always the last consideration by the legal system and the media in these situations. And then there are the families of the victims, who will forever be scarred by the loss of their loved ones. In this case, they at least are spared the agony of having to sit in court and listen to a defense lawyer trump all the excuses about how abused the shooter was as a child.
Yes, it is very sad the shooter and at least some of his victims are probably burning in hell, and I share in the sense of loss that God has for those souls. I just tend to direct my compassion more towards the survivors.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, Sep 18, 2013 8:08am
Mrpizza: I agree too, that all too often the victims [if still alive] and their families [who are also victims in a secondary sense] all too often seem to be ignored where the perp seems to be given all the breaks.
Problem is, it's a very fine line where the perp loses their Constitutional rights as society wishes to show its anger at someone who's believed to have committed a crime.
The way I try to look at that is IF I had been accused of something, I'd want my day in court with all the legal protections our system grants, so I'd be a hypocrite to NOT grant that to anyone else, even IF I believe them to be guilty.
It either works for all or it works for none. So that's why we end up enduring those long drawn out cases that seem insane in what the courts will do to protect the perp, but again, if it were us or a loved one in that situation, we'd want those same protections for us or our loved ones.
Thu, Sep 19, 2013 10:23am
This whole episode makes much more sense, when one realizes that a whole cell was taken out that was responsible for finding, isolating, and killing off whistle-blowers. This was a division of internal security, and most likely the perpetrator was either cultivated and sent to eliminate them, or was in the process of blowing a whistle when his own elimination went horribly wrong. In this scenario, all the loose ends fall nicely right into line.
Sat, Sep 21, 2013 2:39pm
Kavips, the great conspiracy theorist, who probably also believes that 9/11/2001 was orchestrated by the CIA and possibly even the Bush administration.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.