Talk:Washington Navy Yard shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Muslim?

The article suggests that one shooter is dead and the shooter was described as a Muslim and has two references. Neither reference has the information that the guy was described as a Muslim. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it fails WP:V.JOJ ^Hutton 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just a vandal. Just like the ones who keep changing the page with NO CITATIONS of anything official. I am ready to report the bunch.Kennvido (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've applied for the page to be semi-protected. Meanwhile, we urgently need to replace any citations to Twitter with more reliable sources - the Twitter account may possibly be official, but it seems to be used to cite comments from random Twitter users... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is best not to speculate about the motive/identity/religion of the perpertators, and early guesses are often wrong. Remember WP:BLP applies to any suspects.Martin451 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

'Reactions' section

I've removed this for now, as it wasn't properly sourced, and didn't really tell us much. It can maybe be restored when the dust has time to settle and politicians have more to offer than platitudes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton at 1422 said "There is NO indication as of yet that this is terrorism related," and that it may have "nothing to do" with the business of the Yard itself (government concentrated). badboyjamie talk 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't sourced? It is perfectly well sourced to RS. IDONTIKEIT is not a reason to remove (not to mention deception that it wasn't sourced)(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)).

Math

If fourteen were shot and twelve are dead (all news media orgs reporting the twelve figure) with three injured wouldn't it be fifteen shot? badboyjamie talk 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The event is ongoing, and so things are confused facts are unclear, things change etc. and there will be much speculation. One of the injured may have died, there may have been 15 of more shot, or the numbers might have been misreported.Martin451 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The DC police chief said a person was injured but not shot. We have to wait for clarity and RS. Could be a fall during the evac or heart attack. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Persons may injured in their flight from the perp, for example by not exercising sufficient caution in going down a staircase due to their panic. At the horrible Utøya incident 22/7 2011, for example, two of the fatalities were one boy falling down from a ledge he had himself on, and a second boy drowned because he didn't have the requisite swimming skills.Arildnordby (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspect's name redirect

I've re-directed the alleged (deceased) suspect's name to this article. People are going to be searching for the article using his name (like I did), and its better that it redirect's here then sits there as a red-link.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And if it turns out he is not the perpetrator? Then its not a notable link to be here period.(Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)).

Its already a name that's been connected to this incident by the media. If it turns out he's not the shooter, there will still potentially be a reason to keep a small mention of him in the article, and thus keeping the redirect reasonable. --Umbralcorax (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, even if the identification was wrong I would see a brief section mentioning that he initially identified as the suspect to be appropriate. On the same point Richard Jewell is mentioned on the Centennial Olympic Park bombing article despite being cleared of all charges.--64.229.164.69 (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Shooters update needed

The "shooters" section needs updating. Police have informed the press that the "white male wearing khaki military fatigues and a beret" has been contacted, is cooperating with police efforts/questions. Live coverage on all channels is focusing on the "single gunman" topic. I do not have a link per se, but based on what's being said as well as that brief police confirmation, this only involved one perpetrator GokuSS400 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever source we find for the number of shooters, the infobox needs to match the article. Right now, it does not, though that's less of a problem than the out-of-date information in general. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Brundidge misquote

It's really titled the "NavAL Seas Systems Command", not "Navy..." This was a reporter variant is my guess, is it allowable is the question? I would change it, as per Googling "Navy Sea Systems Command" and getting nothing but Al Jazeera & Detroit Free Press re: this event, so the 2nd occurrence of "Navy..." was likely sourced from the Al Jazeera article. Anyway, google "Naval Sea Systems Command" and get the full official site, other sites that all call it that. Phaedrx (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)).

NSSC or NAVSEA?

Bahooka just reverted NAVSEA to NSSC. NSSC *IS* indeed in the article, but is the article erroneous? I personally believe NAVSEA is the correct formal (abbreviative) title to the largest materiel organization of the navy. NAVSEA is all over the official .mil .us .gov sites etc. nowhere is NSSC found. except these foreign journalist's apparent variations. Are they acceptable? I think not, but since I am involved and BOTH NSSC and NAVSEA were my edits, I recuse and present this on the talk page. It's NAVSEA. (see prev. section for same exact logic which was granted). Phaedrx (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to self revert. As it is the same organization, we should be consistent with abbreviations. I will also add the abbrevation to the full name used earlier. Thanks for bring the discussion here. Bahooka (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you help as I am still learning (as evidenced by my punctuation and talkpage signing errors just now) but yeah, sometimes the abbreviations and titles etc. and even body counts sadly get all mixed up in the media reports Phaedrx (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(see below)?

See what below? This sentence is the only mention of the suspect being killed. How? Cops? Self inflicted? Vampire bite? Ebola virus? --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Self-inflicted Ebola infected vampire bite. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

High velocity lead poisoning, secondary to weapons fire from the police.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Injuries

Didn't the last press conference say 8 people were injured, not 14?108.207.39.39 (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

'background' should be moved to 'aftermath'

There is some discussion regarding poor security in RS (see [1] and [2]). But this is an 'aftermath' topic. The non-RS source that is the only basis for 'background' is not clear regarding whether security for this type of seemingly 'terrorist' act had been reduced before the shootings.Haberstr (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Reference the following line: "After shooting a police officer, Alexis took a semi-automatic handgun from off the officer's body and used it."

"From off the..." is terrible English. Please remove the unnecessary "off". Thanks 213.218.219.96 (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)RFN B

213.218.219.96 (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done WWGB (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Source of weapons

Here is an NBC article about the source of the weapons. According to the article, it seems the shooter only entered the base with a shotgun, and picked up the other weapons (Glock handgun and AR15-type rifle) along the way from victims and some sort of storage locker: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-kills-at-least-12-at-washington-navy-yard-gathering-weapons-along-the-way?lite Zenmastervex (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Had he acquire an AR on the base, it'd be either an M-16 or M-4. That said, those are not typically carried by installation security, an M9 pistol normally is. On typical installations, the only place one would find security armed with rifles and even machineguns is at the weapons storage area, where nuclear weapons are stored and the ammunition storage point.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

AR-15 semi-auto rifle was not used in the shooting.

"The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial investigation information that an AR-15 rifle was used may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when." http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/ Cobracommand0 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

From "suspect" to "perpetrator"

Since Alexis is dead and not subject to any legal action, there will be no conviction for these murders. Haven't the investigators consistently declared him to be a perpetrator in the briefings, and no longer refer to him as a suspect? Isn't that the criterion we have used in the past to change characterizations of dead suspects/perpetrators in similar mass killing articles? patsw (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Use of "suspect" is awkward. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Legally purchased shotgun was the main weapon used

"Authorities said Alexis entered the base's Building 197 with a shotgun that was legally purchased in Virginia. Alexis may have gained access to a handgun after entering the building but he did not have an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, as had been reported initially"

"A federal official said the 34-year-old contractor recently paid about $540 to buy the 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition at a gun store in Virginia and took them to the Navy Yard Monday morning.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation is continuing, said investigators believe that Alexis stopped in a men's room and assembled the law-enforcement style shotgun, then proceeded to a spot on the third or fourth floor of the building that overlooked an interior atrium." Cobracommand0 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Some images

There are some images (including one of the building where the shootings took place) here at [Category:Washington Navy Yard shooting] on WikiCommons. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis in the Reserves? Not!

Although official statements from U.S. Navy sources regarding Alexis' 2007-2011 naval service list him as a member of the U.S. Navy reserves, this appears to be highly misleading. Alexis does not appear to have been a Reservist in the normal sense. All of his nearly 4 years of service was taken-up by his initial boot camp training, followed by his specialized "A" School training as an Aviation Technician, and then he was assigned to a naval aviation detachment at Fort Worth, Texas. At no time after he separated from the service (January 2011) did he ever serve weekend duty in a reserve unit. His status as a member of the reserves appears to be hyper-technical designation, based on the fact that all who enlist in the military are administratively classified as belonging to the reserves for their first 5 years. Once a candidate enlists in any branch of the U.S. military, s/he is carried on the rolls as a member of the reserve for 8 years: at the end of a typical 4-year active duty enlistment, members who are discharged are administratively enrolled in the inactive Reserves for an additional 4 years. Alexis was on active duty for his entire (nearly) 4 years, and never performed Reserve duty after he separated. Naval boot camp (Recruit Training Command at Great Lakes) and "A" School (specialized) training take up the first 5-to-6 months of enlistment, followed by a 3-year assignment to the fleet. Junior enlisted personnel who do not plan to re-enlist, are usually allowed to extend their their assignment so that they serve-out their final months at their command, rather than be transferred to a new assignment for their last few months.

Aaron Alexis enlisted in May 2007 and entered boot camp at the relatively advanced age of 27, nearly 10 years older than most of his cohorts. He as promoted to Petty Officer 3rd Class (E-4) in December 2009, which is typical for most ratings. However, at the time of his early discharge in January 2011, he had earned only the two awards given to all service members at the end of their first enlistment (the National Service medal, and the Global War on Terrorism medal). It is very notable that he did not receive a Good Conduct medal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.249.162 (talk)

The allegations of disciplinary issues has been reported on. Insubordination and disturbing the peace were mentioned in several stories, which could be anything from talking back to a more senior sailor to simple drunk and disorderly. But, any way you slice it, he did serve in uniform in the US Navy. To judge by his lack of the usual medals, he was likely a five star screwup, but that isn't too uncommon in any branch of service. Some just never manage to adapt. That was why his commander was originally trying to get him discharged under a general discharge, but that got bogged down and he asked to leave later. Without justification, the commander was forced to give him an honorable discharge.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It may interest you to know that most people who enlist in the military actually sign up for 8 years. Four of those years are usually active duty while any remaining time is spent on "inactive reserve". This means that they can call you back into active service until those eight years are up. rarely used, but many servicemen were retained after 9/11 on the basis of this reserve clause.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The person who made this statement hasn't ever served in the US military, and shouldn't be making such statements without knowledge. I served in the US military. All enlistment are 8 years. You can decide how time you serve as "active duty" or "active reserve" or inactive. There are different pay plan and, compensations, benefits and bonuses for serving more "active duty" or "active reserve" time. If you serve 4 you are still considered reserve for another 4 year. You can choose to be active reserve and get more benefits and maybe a bonus, or inactive reserve and get paid nothing, but still be expected to be able to be called back at anytime during that period.

The Navy is trying to save face "and it should", but He was in fact a Naval Service men, and a reservist at the time of his shooting.

Sucks to think one of our own would do something like this, but he did.

Also his discharge was honorable! It take a whole lot more then a few random events with the police to get a dishonorable discharge. Also the police and prosecutors are always pretty lenient on service members when it come to anger issues, because they realize the stress we go through, and to be honest, being aggressive is part of the job.

But again, the Navy is trying to save face "as it should", but he was an honorably discharge Navy reservist.

One of our own and most trusted committed this crime.

Middle name?

Shooters almost always have a middle name when mentioned in the media. Is Alexis' unknown? Or, does he not have one? tharsaile (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Assault" rifle?

An AR15 is not an assault rifle, the M16 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdworldshooter (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

True. No AR-15 except for the original Armalite manufactured ones were built as assault rifles. However, the article being used as a source does say "AR-15 assault rifle". Because an AR-15 could be converted into an assault rifle or the source could have mistaken an assault rifle variant of the AR-15 (i.e. C7, M16, M4 etc.) for an AR-15, this article should simple say "AR-15", rather than "AR-15 assault rifle" until it is more clear exactly what rifle was used.

"Assault rifle" is a media term invented by activist types to demonize an inanimate object. They have used the phrase to describe semi-automatics and just about any type of firearm that suits their fancy. 99.9999% of those who own such a weapon have never assaulted anyone and have purchased the weapon with defense in mind. Q. So why don't they call it a defense weapon? A. Because it would let the hot air out of the balloon the media is trying to get off the ground. I have heard the military doesn't refer to any weapon as an "assault" rifle. They refer to it in terms of mechanics i.e.semi-auto, fully-auto, and by make and model. And to further the irony here, the weapon used to kill and wound everyone wasn't a so called "assault rifle". If anyone is thinking about using the term "assault rifle" in this article it should read -- a so called "assault" rifle. (With quotes.) Now, having said that, I'd like a box of deadly bullets please. -- Gwillhickers 08:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: On the Assault rifle page, the reference used for the term "assault rifle" is Encyclopædia Britannica Online, not the US Army or other such authority. -- Gwillhickers 09:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that Encyclopædia Britannica is, in and of itself an authority for information. Still, it's advisable to just get over it. Griping about the misuse of the term by the media won't fix the issue. I do agree, I far prefer deadly bullets to rubber bullets. They're far more accurate.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Insert : "griping" about issues often brings about their resolution -- and the Encyclopedia Brit' is a general source for general information. They are an authority on nothing. As an encyclopedia, they (should) direct or make reference to authoritative sources. -- Gwillhickers 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers - No, "assault rifle" is not a "media term invented by activist types" but rather the accepted description in the arms industry and military for a specific type of firearm, i.e. a long gun firing an intermediate cartridge, and having - most importantly - a full-automatic or burst fire capability. The media frequently misdescribed semi-auto-only rifles as "assault rifles," but not the same as them making up the term themselves. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then the media has reinvented the term, as they typically refer to semi-auto's as "assault rifles". Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate that myth. Let's hope we don't here. -- Gwillhickers 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Its also not our job to educate or fix such illusions. We report what the references state. Now if you find a relevant reference involving this situation and the misuse of the term feel free to add it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also not "our job" to perpetuate errors and misinformation. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Motive coverup?

It seems the motives for the shooting is getting the usual treatment. "mental disorders", etc. Don't all cold blooded mass murderers have a "mental disorder"? How many mass murderers were ever considered normal people? Did the shooter himself ever say he was "hearing voices"? So why isn't anyone asking the tough questions? How many of the victims were black? If the shooter was white and all or most of the victims were black the talking heads would be having a parade with the issue and race would be the central theme coming and going. If wikipedia can only parrot what the media is saying why do you even bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.12.158 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ask the media, not Wikipedia. We are not the news and technically should not be. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

An auto generated response. You are right -- you are not the news. You just copy the news and are just as misleading as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.12.158 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Q: Don't all cold blooded mass murderers have a "mental disorder"? A: "The thing they all have in common is that they are being treated for one."

As Sanjay Gupta stated on CNN following Sandy Hook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.149.124 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Alexis did not try to purchase an AR-15

As many news outlets have tried to say that Alexis tried to purchase an AR-15 but Virginia state law prohibit the sale to non residents is false. He did rent the rifle and shot it at the range but did not try to purchases it, instead he tried to purchase a handgun and was turned down due to federal laws restricting handguns to be purchased by non residents, the purchaser can buy the firearm but the dealer must ship it to a dealer in the purchasers home state to do the transfer.

As a member at that Gun Range and purchaser of several firearms in Virginia I can tell you if he wanted to buy the AR-15 he could have, but he chose the more lethal weapon, a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot( 9 round pellets about the size of a .223 bullet) was more accurate in close quarters than the AR-15 sport rifle with a 16 inch barrel and iron sights which require the shooter to close one eye to aim accurately. A 12 gauge "scatter" gun shooting 9 bullets at once is clearly more devastating since you can point in the direction of multiple targets and hit them all. Buckshot is used for deer hunting, the more powerful rifled slug shot shell is a one ounce bullet the size of your thumb traveling at 1500fps can take down a bear in one shot is the most powerful round for the 12 gauge shotgun (Rifle)

News Articles on Subject:
The Washington Times: New York Times gets it wrong, media obsessed with linking AR-15 with Navy Yard shooter

The Washington Times: New York Times corrects AR-15 Navy Yard story, still misses the mark

The Washington Post Local:Inside Sharpshooters, the Newington gun store where Aaron Alexis bought his shotgun

NPR.COM: Correction on news article about AR-15 purchase

HOTAIR.COM: Did the Navy Yard shooter try to buy an AR-15?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2k05gt (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right about federal law prohibiting purchase and carry out a handgun. However, you are wrong about closing one eye when firing an M4 style firearm. I and none of my fellow soldiers closed one eye to fire and we fired quite accurately. The article plainly stated that he rented and fired an AR15, but it mentions that he didn't attempt to purchase the weapon. It also mentions the desire for a handgun, but didn't want it shipped to an FFL holder in his state. It also mentions his purchase of the shotgun. The 870 isn't quite a scattergun though, its shot grouping is fairly tight, depending on the selection of the choke. In an out of the box unit, the shot pattern would be tight enough that at most two might be struck by the pellets. I have 00 buckshot, #4 buckshot and rifled slugs for my 12 gauge. For antipersonnel use, I'd suggest #4 or rifled slug unless one is breaching doors. Then, it would be 00 or rifled slug. The military typically uses 00 for that reason.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The FBI Confirmed that the Shotgun was modified, the Stock and Barrel were sawed off. This would have removed the choke and thus creating a so called "Scatter Gun". Here is the WSJ quote.. James Comey (director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) told reporters that Mr. Alexis, after taking a bag into a fourth-floor bathroom, emerged carrying a shotgun that he had bought two days earlier. "The shotgun was cut down at both ends—the stock was sawed off, and the barrel was sawed off a little bit, said Mr. Comey, who added it was possible the changes were made to the gun in order to fit it in the bag.

@Wzrd1 ..
Your Right about an experienced Military personnel being able to aim the M4 in a tactical situation keeping both eyes open, but for an inexperienced shooter the M4 can be a challange with little to no practice and range time to site the rifle in. you just don't buy one and expect to be shooting bulls-eyes at 100 yards the first time out. It took me a couple a trips to the range to sight my M4 style AR in and learn how the front post sight and rear sight windage and elevation adjustments for different distances.
What a lot of people don't understand is the the M4 style fixed front sight sits up 2.57” inches and the rear sight on the detachable carry handle mounted on the receiver is 2.62”, to adjust this you would need to know about the minutes of angle.
The minutes of angle or (MOA) is equal to 1/60 of a degree (there are 360 degrees in a circle) The easiest way to remember is that one MOA is equal to one inch at 100 yards. As you move farther away from the target, 1/60th of an angular degree or one MOA equals two inches at 200 yards, three inches at 300 yards and six inches at 600 yards and so on.

To adjust the Front Sight Adjustment = ((POI Adjustment) / (Distance to Target))*(Sight Radius).
so lets say the Target Distance: 50 yards (1800”)
Sight Radius: 18”
Initial POI: 5” low

Sight Adjustment: (5/1800)X(18)=0.05”
(Either the front sight can be raised 0.05” or the rear sight lowered 0.05”)
My Point is that there is alot to think about when setting up iron sight MOA adjustment.

With a Shotgun you are looking across the top of the barrel so the target is easy to sight in. Accourding to Remingtons Website, the Model 870™ Express Tactical has a quickpointing 18 1/2" barrel and includes our extended ported Tactical Rem Choke. It packs a full 7 rounds of 2 3/4" or 3" 12-gauge firepower with the factory installed 2-shot extension. comment added by 2k05gt (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Image Deletion Discussion

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aaron Alexis-FBI Image.jpg. Jujutacular (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

The gunman did not use AR-15 rifles as originally reported. Kindrun (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~HueSatLum 16:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/ --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What we know: Federal law enforcement sources say authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe he brought in to the compound. The other two weapons -- handguns -- the sources say, may have been taken from guards.

What we don't know: The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial investigation information that an AR-15 rifle was used may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

Those sources discredited themselves by saying "rent" and "return before Monday shootings" as if you can rent a firearm in the except when you totally remain inside a controlled faculty. They mean rent at a lock-in gun range, fire some shots at the firing line, and hand it back before being allowed out of the building.108.18.78.19 (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The response team told to stand down

Anything more on this? Interesting that it has not been discussed much. Or have I missed it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.254.203 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly being investigated. My GUESS is that command already knew that there were LEO in the building responding, and didn't want those responders having a shootout with the SWAT team. htom (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What drug was he taking?

What drug, or combination of drugs was he taking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.102.48 (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So far, there is no information that he was taking any drugs. The only thing I saw that he sought help, nothing about receiving treatments of any kind, to include medications.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is information in a NY publication, stating the shooter had been seeing a psychiatrist. In Aurora and in Newtown, we had the same thing, with media stating the shooters were being treated for mental health issues, and nothing else, and only later it surfaced, those shooters were medicated with antidepressants. Upon finding this shooter had been seeing a psychiatrist, at this point, I would say the likelihood of this shooter taking such medications also is, "very high". But of course, we don't want our stock plummeting, so...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/navy-yard-gunman-struggled-mental-issues-officials-article-1.1458281 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.102.48 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If a person sees a psychiatrist, one isn't immediately placed on medications. The psychiatrist must evaluate and make a treatment plan that may or may not involve psychiatric medications. Indeed, there is nothing in any story I've read so far that he was under the care of a mental health care professional, only that he saw a psychiatrist. If he didn't follow up with the psychiatrist, discontinued treatment or only had one visit, the story would read the same way. Again, he was already disassociated before he saw the psychiatrist, hearing voices and claimed to be attacked with some mythical microwave beam. But no, it's all part of the vast conspiracy of the space aliens or something, can't be anything like a mentally ill paranoid man with delusions of some conspiracy against him doing an insane thing. We stick with cited facts, not leaps of the imagination. The only thing in your article is the same that is referenced in many other stories about him, all saying he "saw a psychiatrist", but nothing about being under the care of a psychiatrist, taking any medication or fairies dancing in the woods. The same stories are being repeated in the press to keep selling their news product, but have no new information. If and when such information does become available, it can be placed into the article and cited.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. But in this case, as with so many others (as in, nearly every), this is the way it unfolds. By now, it's standard operating procedure. In the course of our conversation here, the death toll in this incident climbed from 12 to 13. This guy walks into a secure military installation, Steven Segals a security guard, steals his gun, then goes on to kill a dozen more people. This (and the preparation for it) - in terms of energy expended by the killer - is comparable to that of the energy expended by Cho Seng Hui @ VT, which, if you go to VT and walk in his steps as I have, you will see, that energy expended was pretty much superhuman. These guys were jacked way up. Then there's the premeditation/preparation; clearly, this guy was thinking in terms of no regard for consequences, others, or self preservation, and far more often than not, this is a state induced by pharmaceuticals. As, these days, thankfully, their own literature states (as if that's enough). So as far as "leaps of the imagination", I don't think I'm leaping very far, but instead, coming to a conclusion based upon the few cited facts available; albeit prematurely, this is all too familiar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.102.48 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah so (from the article): United States law enforcement officials said Alexis had been suffering from some serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, as well as hearing voices. Since August 2013, he had been treated by the Veterans Administration for mental problems. Members of his family also told investigators that Alexis was being treated for mental issues.[42] In August, he had been prescribed trazodone, a generic antidepressant that is widely prescribed for insomnia. Formerly, 76.25.102.48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.149.124 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Prescribed by a VA emergency department physician. Interestingly enough, violent thoughts and actions are not a known issue with patients taking Trazodone. That said, mania has been associated with many antidepressants in bipolar disease sufferers. Since he seems to have actually been taking the drug (he did seek a refill) since August, he'd not have had his dosage adjusted to meet his needs yet and it's unclear if he bothered to see his primary care physician. I'm quite familiar with trazodone and its therapeutic index. Indeed, my father takes it twice per day due to psychiatric issues that are secondary to his dementia. At his starting dose, it provided little relief to him and his dosage had to be increased. His dose may have to be adjusted further on his next followup appointment with his primary care physician, but at least his violent outbursts have ended.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What I know about Trazodone doesn't differ much from what you've stated; everyone I've ever known taking it usually goes straight to bed after doing so. I was surprised to see Trazodone come up in this case, and as it has, I'm not left without a shred of doubt. There are other questions here, the first of which is, "Was it really Trazodone?" Then, "Was it Trazodone AND something else?" Because, the indicators are pretty much screaming, it wasn't just that. Hopefully, toxicology is being done upon whatever of the shooter's meat remains; it could have been just Trazodone (or withdrawl from it), mixed with, say, cocaine (to speculate). Whatever the case, it's abundantly clear - the behavior control/self-preservation mechanisms of this shooter's mind were... (what's the word?) Inhibited. Markedly so. In ALL the usual ways, which the current science cannot & does not account for. That's not Scientology, it's basic common sense, bearing cold, shameful (after-the-) facts. Formerly, 76.25.102.48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.18.179 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Victims

Has anyone heard anything about several of the shooting victims being involved in Obama impeachment proceedings and that Alexis was a big fan of Obama? Lot's of talk about guns, don't see much inquiry being directed at the heart of the matter. The guns didn't kill all those people. Alexis did. Be nice if we had a better idea as to why. It's hard to dismiss the whole thing on sleeping or mental disorders as Alexis was cognitive enough to make his way into the compound undetected as someone about to be an assailant and then start shooting people from various advantage points. He was cognitive enough to purchase the weapon also, yet we're supposed to believe that he was just out of his mind as to why he killed these people. Are we looking any further than what ABC, CBS, NBC, USA Today, Fox, etc is handing us? -- Gwillhickers 21:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "hearing anything about" these claims. Wikipedia's job is not to speculate on Alexis' motivations, or to become the soapbox for other people's speculations: its standards are neutral point of view, reliable/verifiable sources, and no original research. — Yksin (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This mundane recital of WP policy is hardly called for. When I asked if anyone had heard anything, I was referring to any sources they may have come across other than the usual whitewash we get from sources like ABC, NBC and Fox. No one is asking anyone to post rumors or hearsay. Does that help? -- Gwillhickers 04:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-mainstream sources? Well blogs would not be reliable, and anything notable will be taken up by the larger organisations. Repeating what is said in an opinion piece of a small town paper is not worthy of wikipedia for something like this. As to the reason he went on a spree, schizophrenia is a very strange disease affecting 1% of the population, many schizophrenics can be cognitive enough to appear normal, but some are very delusional. How many schizophrenics do you know? I bet it is more than you realise. this is probably worth a read, "Alexis had no awareness of his illness — this is commonly the case with schizophrenics because this brain disease affects the part of the brain that we use to think about ourselves." Of course, being paranoid, he was unlikely to discuss his symptoms with co-workers etc.Martin451 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no news on this because its a group of [http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/09/obama-to-resign-over-terrorgate-pending-congressional-charges-of-conspiracy-and-treason-2456126.html| conspiracy nuts at Truther.org] claiming that the Administration staged the shooting to cover up a more serious event or attack on the whitehouse staged by Obama to gain public sympathy and declare Marshal Law.

Aaron Alexis editing this article?

Would that be him, editing this article from the prison? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting&diff=611499307&oldid=611018719

The inane edits this person made look convincing ... Zezen (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"He's dead. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)