Another rampage shooting

[halik]

Originally posted by: 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.

Did you miss the stabbing rampage in japan last month? No guns and still a ton of dead people...

In any case, it is VERY rare for people that legally own guns to use them on other people... statistically you have a better chance of dying from lightning than being killed in a multi-victim public shootout.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: 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...

Do you know the definition of violence? And comparing a crossbow or sword to a gun is banal. The first two instruments are no way as efficient as a gun when it comes to killing. How many moving targets can you kill with a full clip in ten seconds compared to a sword or crossbow? That's why guns are preferred to crossbows and swords:roll:

 

[eleison]

Actually, if he would of used a car and a knife, he could have killed 7 people and wounded 10 instead of just killing 4 and wounding 2.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2...jun2008/japa-j23.shtml


this old person killed even more people w/ his car, and he wasn't even trying:

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...s_20040107/ai_n9720575

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 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...

Do you know the definition of violence? And comparing a crossbow or sword to a gun is banal. The first two instruments are no way as efficient as a gun when it comes to killing. How many moving targets can you kill with a full clip in ten seconds compared to a sword or crossbow? That's why guns are preferred to crossbows and swords:roll:

Rampage wise, I can take out more people in my car than with a gun... shall we ban those as well?

 

[GRIFFIN1]

I can't believe this company didn't have a rule against people bringing guns to work. Did they also forget to make a rule saying you cant murder your fellow workers? I hope they ban guns from their property so this never happens again.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 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...

Do you know the definition of violence? And comparing a crossbow or sword to a gun is banal. The first two instruments are no way as efficient as a gun when it comes to killing. How many moving targets can you kill with a full clip in ten seconds compared to a sword or crossbow? That's why guns are preferred to crossbows and swords:roll:

Rampage wise, I can take out more people in my car than with a gun... shall we ban those as well?

No because that isn't the purpose of a car, genius. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A better argument would be to wonder why we allow the public to carry such arms but not bombs, grenades, RPGs, APCs, etc...

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 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...

Do you know the definition of violence? And comparing a crossbow or sword to a gun is banal. The first two instruments are no way as efficient as a gun when it comes to killing. How many moving targets can you kill with a full clip in ten seconds compared to a sword or crossbow? That's why guns are preferred to crossbows and swords:roll:

Rampage wise, I can take out more people in my car than with a gun... shall we ban those as well?

No because that isn't the purpose of a car, genius. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A better argument would be to wonder why we allow the public to carry such arms but not bombs, grenades, RPGs, APCs, etc...

First of all you've just switched your argument - so is the evil factor in how efficient the object is in killing or whether the purpose of the object is killing?

How about target shooting competition guns? They are identical to other guns in killing, but their purpose is to send a projectile as straight as possible...

You're digging yourself a hole btw...

 

[eleison]

On a side tangent, the purpose of a gun, especial a hand gun is mainly for self-protection -- killing is only secondary. There's an old saying from veterans (people who are trained to use guns regularly) that handguns are used to protect yourself while you go get your rifle.

in any case, the "purpose" argument makes no sense to me. I think we are slowly moving to "looney land"...

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Dari

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.

The hand out fully automatic firearms to as many people as they can in Switzerland. They have a much lower murder rate than we do.

I think the situation is similar in Israel.

Banning the 2nd Amendment would make guns about as hard to get as drugs. Any criminal who wanted one would have one.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

And likewise your argument must be razor thin for namecalling to be used. And what exactly does making them hard to get do for you? You arent understanding the part where this guy lost his mind and was hell bent on killing. Even if you made it a 6 month waiting period this guy probably would have got his gun. And even if he didnt, he would have used other means to kill.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 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...

Do you know the definition of violence? And comparing a crossbow or sword to a gun is banal. The first two instruments are no way as efficient as a gun when it comes to killing. How many moving targets can you kill with a full clip in ten seconds compared to a sword or crossbow? That's why guns are preferred to crossbows and swords:roll:

Rampage wise, I can take out more people in my car than with a gun... shall we ban those as well?

No because that isn't the purpose of a car, genius. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A better argument would be to wonder why we allow the public to carry such arms but not bombs, grenades, RPGs, APCs, etc...

First of all you've just switched your argument - so is the evil factor in how efficient the object is in killing or whether the purpose of the object is killing?

How about target shooting competition guns? They are identical to other guns in killing, but their purpose is to send a projectile as straight as possible...

You're digging yourself a hole btw...

Don't put words into my mouth. There is nothing evil about guns. A militia or military would have excellent usage for these weapons. But civilians do not need them. Others (including you) were making specious and spurious arguments about other devices that can kill. I responded that guns are meant to kill (highly efficient). My point is that a killing machine does not belong in the hand of civilians. It should be banned from public use just as it is in almost all advanced nations.

Originally posted by: Genx87

And likewise your argument must be razor thin for namecalling to be used. And what exactly does making them hard to get do for you? You arent understanding the part where this guy lost his mind and was hell bent on killing. Even if you made it a 6 month waiting period this guy probably would have got his gun. And even if he didnt, he would have used other means to kill.

Are you speaking for this guy now?

 

[OrByte]

This wacko went all the way home on his break-time to go get his gun.

I don't think any laws would have protected those workers from the violence that this man had in his mind.

He probably would have beaten those workers to death with their own appendages if he had to, the guy snapped. Case closed.

 

[Kirby]

Guns don't need a purpose. I don't need any reason of why I would need one. They are a natural right. Even if half of all newborn babies, kittens, and puppies were killed by gun violence, that isn't a reason to "try" to ban them.

 

[Mail5398]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The guy could have went home got a container of gasoline and burnt the place down. This always turns into a gun debate like the gun magically shot all of those people all by itself.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

:thumbsup:

I love your use of this analogy, and I?d like to follow up by using the ?logic? of the pro government anti-gun nuts. Because some people use illegal drugs against the law, including to rape and kill others - we clearly need to ban all drugs including perception drugs, etc. We need a ?no drug zone? policy in this nation, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

All helpful drugs should be banned with the rest, it?s too easy to go into a rage or depression and abuse them. I?d say that is the equivalent of saying we need to ban guns.

 

[digiram]

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.

Do you agree that Iran should have nukes??

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are spot on, this is exactly what the conservatives on the right think. They believe ANY regulation will eventually lead to confiscation, I think is untrue.

I personally think people should have the right to bare arms, but only if you are qualified and have the mental capacity to purchase and operate gun.

Honestly its harder to get a driver's license or a passport than it is to get a gun.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: digiram

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.

Do you agree that Iran should have nukes??

:disgust:

This line of logic fails on many levels. Apples and Oranges.
And if you want an answer that can be applied.

Would I support allowing a raving lunatic who pronounces his intentions to kill people with a gun, a gun? Absolutely not! Thus I dont support Iran having nukes either.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper


I personally think people should have the right to bare arms, but only if you are qualified and have the mental capacity to purchase and operate gun.

Honestly its harder to get a driver's license or a passport than it is to get a gun.

They should also require tests before you can write news articles or make posts on the internet being critical of the government.

There is no right to drive or get a passport. There are for guns. You either support all of the rights, or none. It's not a game of pick and choose.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
You are spot on, this is exactly what the conservatives on the right think. They believe ANY regulation will eventually lead to confiscation, I think is untrue.

It's true though. We already have thousands, maybe tens of thousands of regulations for firearms. But it's always just one more with fascist liberals. They've already been given inch and have taken miles.

 

[bobcpg]

Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
I can't believe this company didn't have a rule against people bringing guns to work. Did they also forget to make a rule saying you cant murder your fellow workers? I hope they ban guns from their property so this never happens again.

I'm assuming they probably did not have a sign out saying "<Company> Bans Guns on the Property". Because if they did he would have seen that sign, turned around and headed back home to baked some cookies and sleep off his anger.

 

[ScottMac]

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.

Only in your mind.

Civilian carry / concealed carry is the rule rather than the exception by ~3:1 at the state level.

Studies from U of Chicago (pretty liberal place overall) strongly suggest that in places that had high violent crime rates then began concealed carry that the violent crime rate declined.

With extremely rare exception, people that legally carry act responsibly and within the limits of the prevailing laws. Adding more laws has no effect whatsoever on those that ignore and / or break the laws.

With few, if any, exceptions, the worst places in the USA for violent crime are places with the strongest gun laws and the most liberal Democrat government.

 

[ScottMac]

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".

"They" who? And, who specifically is calling them "Advanced?"

Do you mean like Japan, where "they" can walk into your house any time and perform warrantless searches?

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: 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.

You are spot on, this is exactly what the conservatives on the right think. They believe ANY regulation will eventually lead to confiscation, I think is untrue.

I personally think people should have the right to bare arms, but only if you are qualified and have the mental capacity to purchase and operate gun.

Honestly its harder to get a driver's license or a passport than it is to get a gun.

There is a reason for that suspicion. I live near Chicago (used to live in Chicago). When Jane Byrne was Da Mayor, there was a big push for registration within the city. "It's just registration, what's the big deal, I don't know how law-abiding citizens would be concerned with registration {blah blah blah} ..."

Well, the protests against the registration let up, registration was enacted, and then Da Mayor, by executive order, declared that all registration would cease, and that existing registration would expire (I forget the duration, but it was something like a year).

So, no new guns, and everyone without a badge that wasn't an Alderman or a good friend of an Alderman would become an illegal gun owner. Those that registered became #1 target for a gun grab when the registration expired.

No new guns in the City? Wanna bet?

The point is that since the anti-gun folks can't come straight out and take the guns, they've done it with jerking the population around and playing word games. So every time they try to present what may be (this time) truthfully be a reasonable argument, the fact that they have been a lying sack of sh!t, for so long (and continue to be) discounts their credibility and makes normal people suspicious.

And now the City, County, and State are all run by a bunch of worthless lying sacks of shit (individually and collectively) that, even though they are all Democrats and can't find their ass with either hand and a road map, the normal citizens of the state wouldn't believe them if they said the sky was blue.

 

[BladeVenom]

Yes, first it's registration then it's confiscation. It already happened many places.