Another rampage shooting

[Dari]

After arguing with his supervisor, he goes home, gets his gun, returns and starts shooting people dead. This is way too easy. I know guns are popular in the South and West but all these shootings ought to make it harder to get a gun rather than easier. If it was easier, incidents like these would be amplified, resulting in more deaths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7472963.stm

US factory worker in gun rampage

Police in the US state of Kentucky say a member of staff at a plant shot four people dead and injured two others before killing himself.

The shooting in Henderson city happened after the Atlantis Plastics employee argued with a supervisor, police said.

The two other people shot were flown to hospitals in Evansville, Indiana, where one of the survivors was in a critical condition, police told the BBC.

The employee used a handgun he got from home during his break, police said.

A police spokeswoman told the BBC News website the shooting happened at just after midnight on Wednesday at 1218 (0418GMT).

It is not known if the supervisor with whom the employee had argued was among the victims.

 

[ScottMac]

It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

Or, perhaps, if the shooter knew that most of the other workers were armed, he wouldn't have even tried.

If nothing else, it would reduce the "Suicide by Cop" numbers.

 

[Genx87]

When C&C laws are enacted we dont see a rise in gun deaths like you claim.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87
When C&C laws are enacted we dont see a rise in gun deaths like you claim.

What do you see? A drop in gun violence? I didn't think so. The point is not C&C. The point is the ease with which it is to get a gun. Most advanced nations make it extremely tough so you see far less death associated with these rampages. Again, I rather have no one have a gun than everyone having one. This isn't the Wild West anymore.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

You act as if people have no self control? Do we see a rash of beatings and stabbings when people disagree with their supervisors? This line of thinking is silly. As if people are uncontrollable unthinking animals who just react with violence and only violence.

If I have a co-worker who wants to kill me. There is a million other ways to do it at work. In a factory there is a lot of tools that can be used as a weapon. A hammer to the skull will do the trick. If I know there is a co worker who wants to kill me. Him having a gun or not is of little consequence to me anyways.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
When C&C laws are enacted we dont see a rise in gun deaths like you claim.

What do you see? A drop in gun violence? I didn't think so. The point is not C&C. The point is the ease with which it is to get a gun. Most advanced nations make it extremely tough so you see far less death associated with these rampages. Again, I rather have no one have a gun than everyone having one. This isn't the Wild West anymore.

This is a tired old line of thinking. You dont have to see a drop in violence to justify allowing somebody to own a gun for protection. Most advanced nations have also somehow turned into nanny states that want to wipe your ass after your morning loaf. So I dont really put much value in doing what the rest of the world does.

The wild wild west was quite tame by today's standards. Dodge city which was considered out of control saw something like 3 deaths in a single year at the height of its lawlessness.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

You act as if people have no self control? Do we see a rash of beatings and stabbings when people disagree with their supervisors? This line of thinking is silly. As if people are uncontrollable unthinking animals who just react with violence and only violence.

If I have a co-worker who wants to kill me. There is a million other ways to do it at work. In a factory there is a lot of tools that can be used as a weapon. A hammer to the skull will do the trick. If I know there is a co worker who wants to kill me. Him having a gun or not is of little consequence to me anyways.

That's my point. A gun facilitates the killing. It's the perfect instrument for killing. THAT'S WHY OTHER ADVANCED NATIONS MAKE IT EXTREMELY HARD TO GET. If hammers were the #1 facilitator (catalyst) of death, I'd make sure that it was very difficult to get. This is common sense.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
When C&C laws are enacted we dont see a rise in gun deaths like you claim.

What do you see? A drop in gun violence? I didn't think so. The point is not C&C. The point is the ease with which it is to get a gun. Most advanced nations make it extremely tough so you see far less death associated with these rampages. Again, I rather have no one have a gun than everyone having one. This isn't the Wild West anymore.

This is a tired old line of thinking. You dont have to see a drop in violence to justify allowing somebody to own a gun for protection. Most advanced nations have also somehow turned into nanny states that want to wipe your ass after your morning loaf. So I dont really put much value in doing what the rest of the world does.

The wild wild west was quite tame by today's standards. Dodge city which was considered out of control saw something like 3 deaths in a single year at the height of its lawlessness.

You can bitch about them and call them nanny states, but you miss the obvious benefits. Again, this is why they're called "advanced".

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

You act as if people have no self control? Do we see a rash of beatings and stabbings when people disagree with their supervisors? This line of thinking is silly. As if people are uncontrollable unthinking animals who just react with violence and only violence.

If I have a co-worker who wants to kill me. There is a million other ways to do it at work. In a factory there is a lot of tools that can be used as a weapon. A hammer to the skull will do the trick. If I know there is a co worker who wants to kill me. Him having a gun or not is of little consequence to me anyways.

That's my point. A gun facilitates the killing. It's the perfect instrument for killing. THAT'S WHY OTHER ADVANCED NATIONS MAKE IT EXTREMELY HARD TO GET. If hammers were the #1 facilitator (catalyst) of death, I'd make sure that it was very difficult to get. This is common sense.

You totally missed the point. My point is anything can be used as a weapon if one wants to kill you. Thinking a gun law or outlawing a gun makes you safe is silly. I used a hammer in the factory as an illustration of the many ways a coworker hell bent on killing me can accomplish this fact.

You still havent answered my question people's self control. Do you honestly believe everybody who has a disagreement immediately wants to kill that person?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
When C&C laws are enacted we dont see a rise in gun deaths like you claim.

What do you see? A drop in gun violence? I didn't think so. The point is not C&C. The point is the ease with which it is to get a gun. Most advanced nations make it extremely tough so you see far less death associated with these rampages. Again, I rather have no one have a gun than everyone having one. This isn't the Wild West anymore.

This is a tired old line of thinking. You dont have to see a drop in violence to justify allowing somebody to own a gun for protection. Most advanced nations have also somehow turned into nanny states that want to wipe your ass after your morning loaf. So I dont really put much value in doing what the rest of the world does.

The wild wild west was quite tame by today's standards. Dodge city which was considered out of control saw something like 3 deaths in a single year at the height of its lawlessness.

You can bitch about them and call them nanny states, but you miss the obvious benefits. Again, this is why they're called "advanced".

What benefits would that be? Allowing unwarranted wireless taps like Sweden?
Where do we sign up? I am assuming in the line over there where I hand over my gun right?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

I'm guessing the already had a "gun free zone" policy. Didn't work too well did it?

And just because you have no control over your anger doesn't mean no one else does.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

From what I have heard on the news this wasn't one of those planned attacks where the shooter has multiple firearms and lot of ammo, but a heat of the moment, go out to your trunk get your gun because you are pissed at your supervisor, come back in empty the clip and save one bullet for yourself. I am not sure everyone being armed could prevent or lessen attacks of this nature.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

You act as if people have no self control? Do we see a rash of beatings and stabbings when people disagree with their supervisors? This line of thinking is silly. As if people are uncontrollable unthinking animals who just react with violence and only violence.

If I have a co-worker who wants to kill me. There is a million other ways to do it at work. In a factory there is a lot of tools that can be used as a weapon. A hammer to the skull will do the trick. If I know there is a co worker who wants to kill me. Him having a gun or not is of little consequence to me anyways.

That's my point. A gun facilitates the killing. It's the perfect instrument for killing. THAT'S WHY OTHER ADVANCED NATIONS MAKE IT EXTREMELY HARD TO GET. If hammers were the #1 facilitator (catalyst) of death, I'd make sure that it was very difficult to get. This is common sense.

You totally missed the point. My point is anything can be used as a weapon if one wants to kill you. Thinking a gun law or outlawing a gun makes you safe is silly. I used a hammer in the factory as an illustration of the many ways a coworker hell bent on killing me can accomplish this fact.

You still havent answered my question people's self control. Do you honestly believe everybody who has a disagreement immediately wants to kill that person?

I hate to be crass but your point was stupid. ANYTHING can kill someone. If I wanted to kill you, I could also put sand in your nose. But none of those methods would be efficient.. Guns are meant to be efficient facilitators of death. They're also relatively cheap to produce. Hence, of all the devices available to you, guns would be the best weapon and would maximize the user's intention. What part of that don't you understand?

As for people being irrational, it has been seen countless times that people can be highly irrational. In the heat of the moment, before someone has time to cool down, a gun at arm's length would most definitely be used. Considering this guy went home to get his gun shows that had he had it with him at the job, it most likely would've been used.

And if you want to read up on the irrationality of human beings, here's a good place to start:http://nobelprize.org/nobel_pr.../1998/sen-autobio.html

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
When C&C laws are enacted we dont see a rise in gun deaths like you claim.

What do you see? A drop in gun violence? I didn't think so. The point is not C&C. The point is the ease with which it is to get a gun. Most advanced nations make it extremely tough so you see far less death associated with these rampages. Again, I rather have no one have a gun than everyone having one. This isn't the Wild West anymore.

This is a tired old line of thinking. You dont have to see a drop in violence to justify allowing somebody to own a gun for protection. Most advanced nations have also somehow turned into nanny states that want to wipe your ass after your morning loaf. So I dont really put much value in doing what the rest of the world does.

The wild wild west was quite tame by today's standards. Dodge city which was considered out of control saw something like 3 deaths in a single year at the height of its lawlessness.

You can bitch about them and call them nanny states, but you miss the obvious benefits. Again, this is why they're called "advanced".

What benefits would that be? Allowing unwarranted wireless taps like Sweden?
Where do we sign up? I am assuming in the line over there where I hand over my gun right?

Now you're pointing the finger at Sweden when Bush did the same thing and people like you defended him? Now it's been signed into law. And if you don't know the advantages of living in an advanced nation, you need to live in a poverty-stricken one to understand.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

I'm guessing the already had a "gun free zone" policy. Didn't work too well did it?

And just because you have no control over your anger doesn't mean no one else does.

Most people are irrational. If they weren't, they wouldn't be killing themselves with alcohol, cigarettes, extreme sports, etc... The point is that guns are too easy to obtain.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
When C&C laws are enacted we dont see a rise in gun deaths like you claim.

What do you see? A drop in gun violence? I didn't think so. The point is not C&C. The point is the ease with which it is to get a gun. Most advanced nations make it extremely tough so you see far less death associated with these rampages. Again, I rather have no one have a gun than everyone having one. This isn't the Wild West anymore.

This is a tired old line of thinking. You dont have to see a drop in violence to justify allowing somebody to own a gun for protection. Most advanced nations have also somehow turned into nanny states that want to wipe your ass after your morning loaf. So I dont really put much value in doing what the rest of the world does.

The wild wild west was quite tame by today's standards. Dodge city which was considered out of control saw something like 3 deaths in a single year at the height of its lawlessness.

You can bitch about them and call them nanny states, but you miss the obvious benefits. Again, this is why they're called "advanced".

What benefits would that be? Allowing unwarranted wireless taps like Sweden?
Where do we sign up? I am assuming in the line over there where I hand over my gun right?

Now you're pointing the finger at Sweden when Bush did the same thing and people like you defended him? Now it's been signed into law. And if you don't know the advantages of living in an advanced nation, you need to live in a poverty-stricken one to understand.

Please show me where I defended Bush on wireless tapping. At best I was meh on it as i didnt know the facts of the cases or how it was being used.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

You act as if people have no self control? Do we see a rash of beatings and stabbings when people disagree with their supervisors? This line of thinking is silly. As if people are uncontrollable unthinking animals who just react with violence and only violence.

If I have a co-worker who wants to kill me. There is a million other ways to do it at work. In a factory there is a lot of tools that can be used as a weapon. A hammer to the skull will do the trick. If I know there is a co worker who wants to kill me. Him having a gun or not is of little consequence to me anyways.

That's my point. A gun facilitates the killing. It's the perfect instrument for killing. THAT'S WHY OTHER ADVANCED NATIONS MAKE IT EXTREMELY HARD TO GET. If hammers were the #1 facilitator (catalyst) of death, I'd make sure that it was very difficult to get. This is common sense.

You totally missed the point. My point is anything can be used as a weapon if one wants to kill you. Thinking a gun law or outlawing a gun makes you safe is silly. I used a hammer in the factory as an illustration of the many ways a coworker hell bent on killing me can accomplish this fact.

You still havent answered my question people's self control. Do you honestly believe everybody who has a disagreement immediately wants to kill that person?

I hate to be crass but your point was stupid. ANYTHING can kill someone. If I wanted to kill you, I could also put sand in your nose. But none of those methods would be efficient.. Guns are meant to be efficient facilitators of death. They're also relatively cheap to produce. Hence, of all the devices available to you, guns would be the best weapon and would maximize the user's intention. What part of that don't you understand?

As for people being irrational, it has been seen countless times that people can be highly irrational. In the heat of the moment, before someone has time to cool down, a gun at arm's length would most definitely be used. Considering this guy went home to get his gun shows that had he had it with him at the job, it most likely would've been used.

And if you want to read up on the irrationality of human beings, here's a good place to start:http://nobelprize.org/nobel_pr.../1998/sen-autobio.html

My point is no more stupid that believing outlawing guns makes people safer.

Him going home shows he had great intent to kill people. If he didnt have a gun he would have used something else. That is all.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

I'm guessing the already had a "gun free zone" policy. Didn't work too well did it?

And just because you have no control over your anger doesn't mean no one else does.

Most people are irrational. If they weren't, they wouldn't be killing themselves with alcohol, cigarettes, extreme sports, etc... The point is that guns are too easy to obtain.

Stricter gun laws would just take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Just because drugs are illegal does not mean it's difficult to obtain them.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

I'm guessing the already had a "gun free zone" policy. Didn't work too well did it?

And just because you have no control over your anger doesn't mean no one else does.

Most people are irrational. If they weren't, they wouldn't be killing themselves with alcohol, cigarettes, extreme sports, etc... The point is that guns are too easy to obtain.

Stricter gun laws would just take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Just because drugs are illegal does not mean it's difficult to obtain them.

Logic isn't tolerated here. Search your emotions and then report back

 

[Lemon law]

Take my word for it, too many factory foremen and workers are complete aholes. If every factory worker had a concealed carry gun, factories could not function because the workers would reach for their guns too often in moments of anger. And not to pick on just factories, it ain't all sweetness and love in the USA. Or anywhere else for all that matters. But one ahole+gun=real problems.

Normally gun laws are designed to prevent some idiot from becoming enraged, rushing to his nearest firearms story, and then being allowed to instantly buy a gun.
There is supposed to be that 24 hour period in which to cool off and calm down. And this shooting involved a case where he had a pre bought gun legally or illegally stashed
in his car. A quick trip to the parking lot, open fire, and lots of dead people resulted.

This could not come at a worse time for a pro gun owning public because gun ownership rights are now before the supreme court. There are legitimate legal questions regarding the meaning of the law. Some say it applies to individuals and other say it applies to State militias.

I have to really question the NRA strategy that assumes all gun regulation is an initial step towards universal confiscation. Because if the NRA insists on either no gun regulation, they will end up with confiscation. Some reasonable compromises would go a long way to bring sense and balance.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Lemon law


This could not come at a worse time for a pro gun owning public because gun ownership rights are now before the supreme court. There are legitimate legal questions regarding the meaning of the law. Some say it applies to individuals and other say it applies to State militias.

It's already been decided, the opinion just hasn't been released.

 

[bobcpg]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

Or, perhaps, if the shooter knew that most of the other workers were armed, he wouldn't have even tried.

If nothing else, it would reduce the "Suicide by Cop" numbers.

Or, perhaps, if the shooter knew that most of the other workers were armed, he wouldn't have even tried.

BINGO! - But really he could just wait until lunch and get a lot of them with his car in the parking lot....but then we would have to start banning cars (in parking lots ) in the name of saving lives.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

What was the last time you saw any kind of violence during disagreement? Having guns would make people immediately shoot on sight during disagreements? Dumb, dumb argument imo...

And for the record, there are many, many other things that are just as efficient at killing people. Crossbow from 100 yards or less will be as lethal as 357 magnum. So will a samurai sword from up close...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

My point is no more stupid that believing outlawing guns makes people safer.

Him going home shows he had great intent to kill people. If he didnt have a gun he would have used something else. That is all.

You must be dense because I said nothing about outlawing them (although that would be a good place to start). My point is to make it extremely difficult to get. You can outlaw it in one state but if another state allows it, then it's a worthless law. This is something that would have to be taken at the federal level.

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Stricter gun laws would just take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Just because drugs are illegal does not mean it's difficult to obtain them.

They are illegal and they would be cheaper and more accessable if they weren't. Because they are difficult to get and are illegal, there are less people using them. Your argument is extremely weak. Just because people have access to something doesn't mean we should just stick our head in the sand and let the problem ride. If this guy didn't have a gun (which has a very simple purpose), he would've used something else. There's no doubt that there would've been less deaths if he used a hammer or any other blunt object.