Johnson Space Center Evacuated: Shots Fired

Update: Barricaded inside - video at link.

Not again:

James Hartfield with NASA says their security got a report of a man with a handgun on the Johnson Space Center grounds at building 44, which is a communication/engineering building. Houston police and officers with a number of agencies have been called to the scene.

The building has been evacuated. We are hearing reports that employees in other buildings on the JSC grounds are being told to stay indoors.

Hartsfield confirms shots were fired in Building 44. At this time, there are no reports of any injuries. Ambulances have been brought to the scene.

According to Houston police on the scene, the suspect is described as a white male, 50-52 years old, blonde hair, no facial hair, glasses, slim build, 5' 9" bluish gray color shirt, gray or blue jeans. They also said he was barricaded on second floor, northwest corner near stairwell.

At this time, there are no reports of any injuries. Ambulances have been brought to the scene.

Officers can be seen surrounding the building. There is at least one officer, sometimes two, at each corner of the building.

At least one person was searched. It's not known who he was, or if he even considered a suspect.

Space Center Intermediate school in the Clear Creek ISD has been locked down as a precaution. Parents are being asked not to pick up their children at this time.

Evacuated employees and media members have been pushed back, in order to keep them out of the line of potential fire.

Comments

[nowinger]

I heard "white male" is MSM code for "Islamic Jihadist"....just sayin.

[bloodrage bob]

but if it DOES turn out to be a jihadi, we should wrap him in bacon and bury him alive in a latrine pit. along with his koran.

just sayin'.

[BobInStamford]

Sounds like a Bush-voting troop-supporter who can't bear to hear the truth from Harry Reid. Surge on, losers!

[nowinger]

One wonders how exactly a gunman can successfully barricade himself in at NASA.

Homeland Security must have been too busy writing press releases about all their great accomplishments and sifting through my email to bother with something as low priority as ya know, NASA.

[Zifnab]

"One wonders how exactly a gunman can successfully barricade himself in at NASA."

If everyone was armed with tommy guns and flame-throwers, this would never have happened. Don't worry, though. They're sending in Lisa Marie Nowak to take him out.

[Shadowraith]

Fyi, William Phillips Jr., the gunman, was apparently to be fired. MSM is reporting that he and a hostage are dead.

[nowinger]

Yes, according to winger logic, the problem isn't that a nut was able to bring a gun on the job to NASA, but, that the rest of the employees weren't also packin heat. If ALL NASA employees had guns, this wouldn't have happened.

[BobinStamford]

If astronauts had guns, the space shuttles would never explode.

[bloodrage bob]

right you are, nobrainer! "running away" from an armed nut IS a much better solution than doing the gunfight thing. i'll be the first to say so.

but what happens - as at VaTech - what happens when you have nowhere to run?

let's see.....MY way, you at least have a chance; YOUR way, you line up as ordered and hope he runs out of ammo before it's your turn to be executed.

that's a helluva a self-defense system you've got there, honey. good luck with that.

[templar knight]

Bob, you still looking for a hairy guy? You need to go to Pakistan. There are lots of hairy guys in Pakistan, I think you would like it there very much. Don't call us, we'll call you. Adios.

[nowinger]

I have nothing against keeping a gun in your home or carrying a gun IF you have a valid reason, what I personally would 'wish' for in terms of gun laws is not on the table since the right to bear arms is clearly articulated, comma and all.

But, the idea that EVERYONE, even 18 year old college students who are allegedly too immature to have a fucking legal beer should ALL be carrying concealed weapons is madness.

Hey, in my state its virtually impossible to get a permit to carry, you also have to give the gov. your fingerprints [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] to get a gun permit for any gun, that doesn't mean I don't agree that everyone in America having the right to have guns on their person at all times isn't a recipe for mayhem.

[bloodrage bob]

you just hit upon the entire crux of the thing, nowinger. you have nothing against you or me carrying, "IF (I) HAVE A VALID REASON".

and who makes that call? who's allowed to say "he may", and "he may not"?

will that person be a human? subject to the same iron laws of human nature that led to the monumental screwups of cherynobyl;and the 'war on poverty'; and 'let's make VaTech a gun-free zone'; and the 'edsel' and 'new coke'? someone who can be bribed; who will apply whatever prejudices they have to the limits of their power? "i don't like black folks. no guns for them". "a mere woman can't handle a .45! no gun for her!" "i really don't like guns, except in the hands of my bodyguard. no guns for *anybody*! (except my bodyguards, of course.)"

you're willing to grant that power to a government? when governments *specialize* in mission creep? (back when social security started, it was 1% from you and 1% from your employer, on the first 1000 bucks. it's crept up some since then, huh?) again: good luck with that. but it'll be over my dead body. as you pointed out, "unconstitutional".

[nowinger]

It's funny to hear you talk about "mission creep" which is the exact same argument we liberals have been making about the Patriot Act, 'enemy combatants, redefining torture and changing the rules for spying on Americans. I guess the idea of the government over reaching is only important to rights that are important to YOU, not all the rights.

As far as guns go, the government ALREADY has that power. In my state its very hard to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon and it is up to the discretion of the police. I was told once in applying for a permit just to OWN A HANDGUN not to say the reason was self protection or it would be denied, to say I wanted to take up target shooting. How ridiculus is that?????? THe person who told me might have been full of shit or not, since I didn't say I wanted a gun permit for self protection but for recreational shooting, of course I DID want it for self protection.

[bloodrage bob]

you must live in massachusetts or new jersey, nowinger. well then: you wished to carry; presumably for your own protection, as mandated by the laws of god, rights of humanity, and the protections franted by the united states constitution, yes?

and your home state gave you the finger and said 'go to hell'. since MA and NJ (and CA and MD and all the other notorious anti-gun states) are controlled by democrats - "liberals", as they're sometimes known - it seems the liberals are actively working AGAINST your safety, despite what they say.

1) why tolerate it? why not just move to a state where self-defense hasn't been criminalized?
2) it seems you're pretty pissed about this..why then are you against allowing others what YOU wanted? i say "arm the VaTech students", and you crap all over my statements. how come?
3) i never said "all students *should be carrying*." i just think those that want to, shouldn't be told they can't. you didn't like it when that happened to YOU, right? one or two of those kids being armed that day would have been a GREAT THING, right?

[nowinger]

When we lower the drinking age to 18 as it should be, then I have no problem with 18 year olds owning guns.

I do see a big difference between keeping a gun at home and carrying a concealed weapon.

Its also up to any institution whether or not to allow guns, though 'gun free zone' smacks of stupid PC bullshit, if I was to guess I would guess that most places of employment do not want their staff to be carrying guns on the job and if it was allowed legally, they would make a rule against it.

I do not believe that everyone should be allowed to carry weapons at all times. Do you really want the server at McDonalds' to be carrying a concealed weapon, or to live near a frat house full of guns?

Yes, it was Massachusetts, but the entire NE with the exceptions of Maine and New Hampshire are about the same as far as highly restrictive gun laws.

[Legalize]

Dammit; another jihadi dry-run! I propose the following:

1. Build a wall between NASA and Mexico;
2. Missle defense shield;
3. Nuke Mecca and/or all of Iran;
4. Invade Britain because they are pussies; and
5. Ex post facto impeach Jimmy Carter for the whole Iran hostages thing.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

"Hey, in my state its virtually impossible to get a permit to carry, you also have to give the gov. your fingerprints [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] to get a gun permit for any gun, that doesn't mean I don't agree that everyone in America having the right to have guns on their person at all times isn't a recipe for mayhem."

Well there's part of your problem justwingingit, you aren't very familiar with the constitution. You have a second amendment right to own a firearm, not to carry it concealed. The CCW (10th Amendment) is a privilige, not a right. Since you REQUEST a CCW the state is perfectly right to ask for your prints.
Now I have to agree that there needs to be some "sensible" controls on these things. I don't want any idiot, especially drunken frat boys packin' heat to the pep rally. (Strangely, we send the same age kids off to war...and wont let them buy a beer or a house)But how to do it without infringing too much on the rights of others. This right wing redneck happens to have no problem with waiting periods (the instant background check is FEDERAL law now) and frankly, requiring some training........BUT AS ALWAYS, MY BIGGEST CONDITION IS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE. Where I live, one must get a permit to buy from his local sheriff or PD. There is a thorough background check which takes up to a week, sometimes longer for displaced yankees and other outsiders. This is just to buy a handgun, not CCW. Gun Shows are treated like any dealer, in other words all the paper work must be completed, etc. Now, I think it's kinda stupid that I can buy the gun and sell it to you on the sidewalk in front of the gun store, no paper work............... Oh, got a kid in the house? Your weapon MUST be locked up, which can mean a trigger lock.

[Legalize]

Imaginewhirledpeas needs to brush up on his Con Law - alot.

Just sayin'.

[nowinger]

I am very familiar with the second amendment thank you.

In my state and most of the NorthEast you are required to provide your fingerprints in order to get a gun permit, period. To own a gun you have to submit your fingerprints. Not just a permit to carry.

I was and am against the background check, its another way to get a national database, and could be put to all kinds of nefarious uses by the gov. It is either generally worthless or it means the gov. has to collect a whole lot of information about you in order to determine if you told any lies on your application.

I tend to think waiting periods are pointless, but they aren't very onerous so, that's fine.

The problem with America is we think if we can only tinker with the law enough we can fix anything, but we tend to go for the low hanging fruit. Thus, gun violence is as problem, we have the highest rate of gun violence in the industrialized world. So, what do we do? Move over some money from the 'war on marajuana plants' to AGGRESSIVELY seek out and prosecute illegal gun dealers? Nope. Enforce the mandatory sentencing requirements for crimes committed while in possession of a gun? Nope. What we do is make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens with no police records to own registered guns. I don't see that having much impact on the majority of gun violence.

It is exactly the same thing we've done with drunk driving laws, abortion laws and for that matter the war on terror. There aren't, in truth, very many terrorists and they are hard to find, so, we keep on passing laws that give the gov. more and more latitude, casting a wider and wider net to the point there aren't any safeguards for the innocent people should some unscrupulous gov. individual choose to target them.

[bloodrage bob]

gotta run soon, nowinger, but i can't resist: did you ACTUALLY write "it's up to any institution whether they allow guns" etc etc???

even if those weapons are legal, and sanctioned by local/state/federal law???

BZZZZZZZ. wrong answer. "institutions" don't get to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. if acme university wants to....say...admit only straight, non-gay students, because "they have a policy", are they allowed to do that?

is acme hospital allowed to refuse care to libertarians? can they sell crack there? can they have 11-year-old employees driving 18-wheelers for 2 bucks an hour?

can acme, inc. refuse to hire black folks? "we're just not comfortable around them". can they fire women they suspect of having abortions? "babykiller!!" can they insist all employees and vendors walk around naked, because the owner is a nudist? "watch out for sharp edges!"

NO....because it's against the LAW. NO institution/company/etc is allowed a "policy" that supercedes local/state/federal LAW. so why an exception for guns? entirely legal guns? and ONLY guns?

libertarian rule #1: can't have it both ways.

[nowinger]

Oh come on Bob, your employer can tell you that you can't wear jeans to work, are you saying he can't tell you that you cant' bring your gun to the office?

Employers can make all kinds of regulations about what is and is not permissable on the job, they can tell you what you can and can't wear, how you behave, that you can't be drunk on the job [it ain't illegal to be drunk] and they most certainly can have a policy about guns and weapons in the workplace.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

nowinger, dude, they ALREADY know most of the legal gun owners are and can easily figure out most of the rest. Goes like this: Hunting license holders, gun shop forms, NRA, etc members, then if you simply have a subscription to G&A.
I agree about waiting periods, cho waited 30 days to get his second weapon. Prints and registration the same. Prints only tell you who held the gun once and registration just tells who owns certain types of guns. The BS about CSI being able to tell whose "registered" gun did what is fiction unless your gun has some extra striation or ding inside the barrel.Restricting magazines? So I have to have more mags for my 7 shot 45 than you do for your glock.BFD
We're a lot in agreement on this issue and probably agree that the laws we have, if enforced are sufficient.

[templar knight]

"imaginewhirledpeas needs to brush up on his con law"

Maybe, but nowinger is in danger of becoming a dyed in the wool conservative if he stays the course he is on. Very good. Keep hope alive.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

tk I,m not too stung by some leftist who likely believes teh 2nd Amend only applies to militia, so I assure you I need little "brushing up". nowinger is much more conservative about certain things than he/she lets on. Few, very few Libertarians thought the war w/ iraq was a good idea from the start. Some are just unable to voice their opinion w/out borrowing from the haters.

[Legalize]

Funny, I didn't say a word about the 2d Amendment.

[bloodrage bob]

got ya on the run, don't i nowinger. the best argument you can offer to my stunningly effective evisceration of the disarmament crowd is "well, companies won't let you wear *jeans* sometimes; and jeans are legal"; and "companies won't let you work drunk. being drunk is legal".

if you're going to stoop to reductio ad absurdum arguments, (as a last resort, clearly), at least think for a second or two. being drunk *in public* IS illegal; and while companies CAN insist upon an employee conforming to its COSMETIC rules of appearance.....(and yet they can't say "all female employees must lose weight and get boobjobs", despite the fact that would certainly perk up a workplace)...

a carefully-concealed weapon is neither visible nor illegal.

and yet somehow companies/universities/etc are allowed to discriminate against the legal rights of those wishing to legally excercise their legal carry rights. CAN'T discriminate against race, sex, religion, handicapped, etc etc etc....CAN discriminate against guns and cigarettes.

naaah, you're right: no double standard THERE.

[nowinger]

Whatever Bob, another example of the winger mindset. I agree with the second amendment, I agree that the gun laws are onerous and don't help prevent gun violence.

But, because I don't agree that its a good or even SANE idea that EVERYONE be allowed to carry a concealed weapon ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME, even to their job, it sends you back over the edge and you can't help but attack and ridicule me.

Bush and Rove have taught you well. Never compromise. Compromise, discussion, diplomacy, that's for suckers and pussies. Everything, every issue, every debate is a zero sum game with the ONLY option the total defeat of the enemy, because of course, anyone who disagrees with anything IS THE ENEMY and must be destroyed.

Until we stop thinking about every issue as a total win or lose this country is going to stay in the pathetic quagmire that its in, getting more and more polarized, with most people distracted from real, pressing matters by so called wedge issues that don't even affect them like gay marriage or late term abortion or playing word games about what winning a war means.

If you prefer another term, the Iraq war was and is a failure. It will always be a failure and it will be a failure whether or not it is ever eventually secured and peaceful. It will be a strategic and tactical failure even if you wingers can eek out some kind of "winning" critiera. I don't think the surge will succeed, I hope it does, but even if it does the war is STILL A FAILURE. I know your mind which is steeped in jingoism and machismo can't comprehend this, but the rest of the world already knows this and history will document it. History may also document the Iraq war as the END, not the beginning of American hegemony.

[nova]

Here is a good letter in this morning's Washington Post newspaper.
"I take strong exception to one of The Post's headlines regarding the Virginia Tech massacre: "The Story With No Moral" Style April 17th. The obvious moral is this: Guns don't kill people, people with unrestricted access to guns kill people. And people with unrestricted access to semiautomatic weapons kill lots of people". Barry A.Kemellhor,Rockville.
That really says it clearly as can be regarding not only VT but Columbine and all the other mass gun killings in the USA. I would have added only one change to what he wrote. I think he should have put the words mental defective before the words people with unrestricted access to guns. And the words mental defective before the words people with unrestricted access to semiautomatic weapons. The sad thing about all this is that nothing will change. Big story for a few days then back to SNAFU and SOP ASAP.

[nova]

It would also be interesting to know where Cho got that 500 dollars from to buy that gun. Most college kids dont have that kind of money.

[bloodrage bob]

whatever, winger, another example of the liberal "it's easier to just *feel* stuff than go to the trouble of actually *thinking* about it for 10 seconds."

you just keep right on chanting the calming slogans teacher taught ya. good luck with that.

[nova]

BB: Instead of just attacking others could you please offer some thoughts of your own. No one ever built a statue of a critic.

[Cindi]

Miss America Fires Handgun to Stop Intruder

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/miss-america-fires-handgun-to-stop/20070420230109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[nowinger]

Wingers know how to acquire and keep power: lie and attack. Wingers don't know how to use power. Once their crazy ideologically driven policies get put in place they fail in spectacular fashion.

[bloodrage bob]

nova, i've had the flu the last week and have been posting like a fiend: it beats watching soaps. if you want "thoughts of my own", just go through the comments for the last few days and read. they're LOTS of them. i lay my "thoughts" out in some detail; and, as opposed to the liberal weenies, i come right out and say what i mean.

compare that to noyyyinger above, who alternates between an almost lucid near-reality; and wild slobbering statements about the evil, sinister "wingers". and the giant hairy spiders that also haunt her hallucinations. "the wingers! and the spiders! aaahhh!!! get 'em off me!!"

you can always tell when her meds start to wear off...

but as for ME, yeah, it's all written down. it IS interesting that you'd characterize my responses to completely idiotic postings by delusional halfwits - folks who say things like "**i** wanted and deserved a concealed-carry permit, but we *shouldn't* let the VaTech students have them - (that's be noyyyinger)(look it up)...it's interesting that you'd think of those fairly tepid responses as "attacking others". oh, dear: was *that* an attack too? what would you have me say? "i respectfully disagree with your position"?

hmmmm. and the liberal trolls who pop in & out, sad & pathetic losers desperate for attention; (the latest seems to be something called a 'merlallen'); making racist remarks; calling the VaTech dead "losers"; trying (and succeeding) to be enormous assholes....you have no criticisms or helpful suggestions for THEM??? none at all?

how very strange. why not? might it be an act of political discrimination on your part? one standard for the sweet kind saintly kneejerk hardcore left-wingers, and an entirely more stringent one for everyone else?

[nova]

BB: I like what you write. I like what others on this board write. That is why I keep coming back here. Compared with other message boards this is a Mensa meeting. I like different points of view and I like that most all on this board are thoughtful intelligent and nice to each other most of the time. I can learn things here. That is why I keep coming back. Also almost no women on here to mess it up.

[nova]

And BB: I hope you are feeling better now. I mean that. I am not kidding or trying to be sarcastic. I have read quite a bit of your posts. Keep it up. I enjoy reading them.