Multiple shooting in Kennesaw, Georgia at FedEx location

[KeepItReal]

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: 11 Alive Atlanta

KENNESAW, Ga. -- A shooting was reported at a FedEx facility in Kennesaw Tuesday morning.

More than 50 emergency vehicles descended upon the facility at 1675 Airport Road.

11Alive's Paul Crawley reported from the scene that FedEx employees were being turned away as they tried to arrive at work.

Read more: http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/kennesaw/2014/04/29/kennesaw-fedex-shooting/8448813/

---

Reports are 6 people wounded.

Shooter is dead of purported self-inflicted wound.

[groundloop]

1. here's a link

http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/kennesaw/2014/04/29/kennesaw-fedex-shooting/8448813/


I work right across the street, came through just as police were shutting down traffic.


edit to add: And yes, Kennesaw is the city that has a law on the books requiring residents to own guns.

[maddezmom]

2. 50 emergency vehicles?

Sounds like it could be bad.

[Roland99]

3. Kennesaw, GA...home of just about the most lax gun laws in the country

Conservatives just *love* to spout off about how awesome and violence-free Kennesaw is.

Who could have predicted something like this?

[groundloop]

4. This isn't the first incident

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 08:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Just a few months ago someone was shot and killed in a road rage incident. And I seem to remember another shooting at a business a couple of years ago.

edit to add: Just found information on the other incident I was thinking about ... In 2010 Three people were killed and several others injured at a truck rental company in Kennesaw.

But yes, the gun nuts for some reason have this fantasy that if only they have a gun with them they could prevent this shit (while their guns everywhere and for everyone laws make it crazy-easy for the idiots that commit these crimes to obtain guns).

[Voice for Peace]

12. another shooting just a couple of weeks ago

http://www.11alive.com/story/local/2014/01/01/7907913/?storyid=7907913

COBB COUNTY, Ga. -- Two men are dead after a shooting took place near a Red Lobster in Kennesaw.

Cobb County police were called to 2626 George Busbee Parkway after reports of shots being fired late Friday night. Once there, authorities discovered Zakeem Berry, 23, of Kennesaw, in the roadway with a gunshot wound.

Berry was taken to Wellstar Kennestone Hospital, where he died from his injuries.

The suspected shooter was identified as Richard Holcomb, 23, of Rydal, Georgia. He was located at the Kroger at 3895 Cherokee Street in Acworth, not long after the shooting. When officials arrived, they found Holcomb suffering from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Holcomb was transported to Wellstar Kennestone Hospital, where he died as a result of the self-inflicted gunshot wound.

[Roland99]

19. Still...a virtual paradise compared to south Chicago

according to the gun nuts

[jmowreader]

44. Kennesaw had a "must have a gun" ordinance in the 1970s

When Morton Grove, IL passed a "no guns within city limits" ordinance in the 1970s, Kennesaw passed one requiring everyone to have a gun. The law has more loopholes than the Tax Code (too poor, too disabled, not legally entitled, the invisible man you pray to says no guns, or you just don't want one) but they have it.

[KamaAina]

45. So everyone around him was armed?

Why didn't they stop him?

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. They have a law requiring gun ownership, in fact

[IronGate]

55. Which is not enforced,

and there are numerous loopholes to exempt citizens from the law.

[LiberalElite]

61. I guess the NRA will say they're not lax enough nt

[Nanjing to Seoul]

5. Cue gun humpers in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. . .

[PasadenaTrudy]

16. Okay....

This meme is getting really tired...

[Nanjing to Seoul]

18. tired of not. . .it is accurate.

the stories of people getting shot by gun nuts are getting really tired too. priorities.

what's more annoying to you? people tired of gun humpers or people tired of Americans getting shot?

[Aristus]

24. +1

I'm afraid my sympathy must be reserved for people who get shot, and not for people who bristle at the term 'gun-humper'.

To my way of thinking, the only way that term could offend someone is if it suits them to a tee.

[PasadenaTrudy]

43. Not offended

it's just too predictable on here anymore...

[tenderfoot]

66. As is GUNHUMPERS defending assholes that use guns to shoot people

eom

[calimary]

53. I'm afraid my sympathy must lie with what you said, Aristus.

If the gun-humpers don't want to hear it, that's just tough. I don't want to hear about why guns simply must be jammed down our throats from coast to coast! And I'm getting pretty damn tired of having to hear that again and again and again. Sorry. But that's how I feel.

[PasadenaTrudy]

42. Tired of not?

Whatever!

[Nanjing to Seoul]

59. Thank you for proviing to me exactly what my post wanted to prove

Cue the gun humpers in 5,4,3,2,1. . .

[Skittles]

63. MEME? It's a f***ing REALITY in America

officially kowtowing to GUN HUMPING COWARDS

[EmilyAnne]

6. This town has a mandatory gun ownership law. nt

[jberryhill]

8. Could have been mutual simultaneous self defense

Perhaps they were running out of ground to stand on.

[Helen Borg]

13. You can imagine a scenario in which...

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

An entire town is wiped out by one person initially starting to shoot and then everyone else shooting back and at each other, initially by mistake, in a panicky mess. This is going to happen at some point, as more people own guns. It's a prototypical example of + feedback that spirals out of control.

[jberryhill]

15. Like a chain reaction pile up

[Plucketeer]

23. Quite possible

I was at Bien Hoa Air Base, Vietnam in early '65. I was an aircraft maintenance type on temporary duty from Clark AFB in the Philippines. Before deploying to Vietnam at that time - ALL persons going there had to learn how to handle an M-16 and be issued one to carry with us (I scored "Expert Marksman", BTW).

So here's a bunch of us maintenance types - sleeping peacefully in our barracks one night - when a nervous Marine guarding the base perimeter fired off a few rounds at a stray dog that had spooked him. THAT provoked all the "John Wayne" maintenance types to jump out of their bunks and grab their M-16s. Now there were a bunch of young GIs with only their skivvies and their M-16s - creeping about, outside of their barracks and shooting at one another (I was not one of those heroes. I had my gun alright, but that gun and I were practicing to see just how intimate we could get with the concrete floors). What's really amazing is that no one ended up wounded or worse. The next day they had us turn in our guns to squadron HQ. If we needed them after that, we'd have to run there and check them out.

[Brigid]

11. I have never understood . . .

How such a law could be constitutional -- or enforceable. What are they going to do: search your home and arrest you if they don't find a gun?

[Brainstormy]

20. It's not enforced.

I live in Kennesaw, don't own a gun, and don't actually know anyone who does. Doesn't mean the guns aren't out there, but there has never been any attempt to "enforce" the law.

[EmilyAnne]

22. Interesting. Thanks for adding your insight.

Sorry this happened in your community.

[happyslug]

21. In the days of Draft Cards, that is all any one had to do

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

In the days of Draft Cards, if you were male (Females were NOT drafted) and did not produce your draft card on demand, you could be arrested right then and there for NOT registering for the draft. The law PRESUMED you had not registered for the draft. , and as a male over age 18 YOU had to produce evidence that you HAD REGISTERED for the Draft.

This was viewed as Constitutional for when the Bill of Rights were adopted, the same Congress wrote the laws in regards to enlistments and followed what von Steuben had instituted in 1777. What von Steuben had adopted was the Prussian Rule on enlistments, all the Government had to show was you had enlisted, any discharge of that enlistment had to be produced by the enlistee. Thus former Service personal always kept a copy of their discharge papers. Without one, the Service can claim you had deserted and without the discharge papers such an ex service person was guilty of desertion.

Similar rules applied to Freed Slaves prior to the Civil War, if an African American was seen by anyone, he or she could be arrested. If that African American was a slave, he or she would be returned to his or her owner. On the othe hand, if they claim they were free, they had to show paper work, signed by their former master, that they were free (or get someone from their former master to say they were free, the burden of proof was on the African American). If no such evidence was produced, they would be held by the county sheriff for about 90 days, then sold to pay of the cost of their upkeep (this is the days where you had to PAY for the food you ate while you sat in jail, if you could not pay, the costs were accessed against you, and if you were an African American in the days of Slavery, sold to pay off that debt).

Side note:

Notice the rule, the African American had to show they were a Freeman, not the Sheriff that the African American was a runaway slave. The affect of this law was well known, thus during the US Civil War at Andersonville POW camp, the African American Prisoners were the ones assigned to bury the dead. This permitted African American POWs to be outside the Camp (where they could scourge for food, an option denied to the White POWs, thus African Americans in Andersonville had a lower death rate then White POWs). The reason the Commander of Andersonville assigned the job of burial of the dead to African American, is that if they ran away, the African Americans knew if they were captured by anyone else in the south (and that was what most likely would happen to them) they be sold as slaves. The South had accepted that the North had permitted African Americans to enlist and treated them as POWS if they African American Soldiers had surrendered (in most cases, you had several cases were the Southern Troops massacred African Americans, see Fort Pillow for the best known example) but if the African Americas escaped from the POW Camp and were picked up by a local Sheriff, they then would be sold into Slavery.

Thus this shift of the burden of proof from the owner to the African American was a harsh rule, but a rule easy to enforce and Constitutional for it was the common practice in the South at the time of the Adoption of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In the North, even prior to the movement to abolish slavery that started in 1783, the burden was on the slave owner not the slave, which was also the rule in the South when it came to Indentured Servants and White Slaves, through White Slavery ended by the end of the 1600s).

http://www.balchfriends.org/glimpse/JPetersIntroBkLaws.htm

I bring up the above two example as how a law can be constitutional that requires you to keep something. All the law has to say is you MUST have it, and on demand you must produce it. Just like Draft Cards had to be produced (and in the days of Slavery, how passes had to be produced by Slaves, and emancipation papers had to be produced by Freed Slaves or other African American). In fact Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers on the Militia, suggested such a situation when it came to the regular militia. Once a year they be called out and checked out if they have the proper amount and type of equipment required of the Militia and then sent home. Did not appear, or did not have the equipment, they would be arrested, jailed and fined.

Thus the Court's will have a tough time ruling such a law unconstitutional, given Hamilton's support for something similar in the Federalists Papers AND how enlistments were treated at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Brigid]

25. I still don't see how this could be constitutional.

Maybe TPTB in this town know better than to force the issue if some resident took them to court over this stupid law, and that is why it isn't enforced.

[happyslug]

34. I am just pointing out, nothing in the Constitutions makes such a law illegal

Now, the State can make it illegal for Local Government to pass such a law, but if the State says nothing, then the local government can pass what they can. Enforcement would be easy, do as Alexander Hamilton suggested, call everyone into the City with their weapon, if they do not show up, go out and arrest them. The Government can DEMAND that you produce certain things on demand (the old Draft cards for example, or even a Driver's license if you are operating a motor Vehicle). Failure to produce is all that is needed for an conviction. Production of the item (for example a firearm or papers showing it is illegal for that person to own a firearm) stops the trial. Nice and simple solution that the Courts will uphold. This is why that rule of law was adopted for Slaves and Soldiers and Sailors who are discharged.

Now, you may say, what about the Right NOT to incriminate oneself? The problem is the law REQUIRES you to produce the item, lack of the item is what is illegal NOT the item itself. Thus failure to produce the item is NOT incriminating oneself. Incrimination requires a POSITIVE act, not a negative act. A law that REQUIRES you turn over something that is illegal (such as a firearm) and then production of that item is used to convict you, is forbidden under the Right NOT to incriminate oneself.

The Right not to Incriminate oneself has lead to some problems with Firearm laws. For example, it has been held a general requirement that all firearms are to be registered violates the Right NOT to incriminate oneself, unless it contains an exception in cases of people turning a weapon in for any purpose (including to register such weapon).

On the other hand, the Right NOT to Incriminate oneself does NOT forbid the Police from asking for blood, hair, fingerprints or other physical evidence from your body.

Just pointing out, the Courts have long viewed ways around the Right NOT to Incriminate oneself and ways around other restrictions in the Bill of Rights as NOT being violations of the Bill of Rights. The demand that someone produce something or being convicted of NOT having that thing is one way. In the case of a demand that people have weapons, is that such weapons be inspected by some authority upon demand (Which was the rule with the old Draft Card) or show up and be inspected (Hamilton's solution to checking the equipment of the Militia), these are all constitutional ways to make sure people are doing what is expected of them.

You have to remember, the two broadest power given to the Federal Government in the US Constitution is the right to regulate Interstate Commerce, and the right to form up and organize the Militia. The Second Amendment, in my opinion, is worded the way it is for they wanted to preserve the ABILITY of the people to form they own Militia units, when the Federal Government failed to do so, but also NOT to interfere with such Federal Organization of the Militia. Thus any requirement as to Militia Weapons will be upheld by the courts as long as it does NOT interfere with how the Federal Government organizes the Militia. I suspect this would include a demand that people own a weapon, and subject such weapons to reasonable inspections. Thus requiring a weapon would be constitutional.

Remember the same Congress that passed the Bill of Rights also passed the First Militia Act of the US, which did REQUIRE every male to own the assault rifle of that time period. The same act limited pistols to those units that had traditionally used pistols (the horse cavalry), but require all "White Males" (after the Post Civil War Amendment interpreted to mean all males) to own a musket. Thus how can Congress both REQUIRE people to own a firearm, and then say it is a violation of the Bill of Rights to require such men to provide evidence of such firearm? The answer is Congress NEVER intended such a situation and thus there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that prohibits, the Federal. State, or local government from making such a requirement. Thus it is constitutional.

[Brigid]

38. Your lengthy posts defending this nonsense don't convince me.

I will not own a gun -- I hate the damned things, if you haven't guessed already -- and I would take the right not to be forced to own one all the way to the Supreme Court if I had to. Of course, even Indiana doesn't have such a stupid law, and there is no way to force me to live in that ridiculous town in Georgia, so problem solved, I guess.

[happyslug]

60. I am NOT asking you to own a Weapon, I am just saying such laws are Consitutional

Just because something is constitutional does NOT make it right or even legal, those are different issues. I was just pointing out the law in question meets the requirements of the US Constitution and that is all.

[Dale Neiburg]

65. The way I would approach a constitutional challenge...

...would be to argue that the second amendment guarantees/recognizes the "right" to bear arms, and the right to do X automatically includes the right not to do X. That's the difference between a right and an obligation.

[happyslug]

68. And you would be correct, BUT the Federal, State or Local Government COULD pass a LAW mandating such

The Bill of Rights are a list of things the GOVERNMENT can NOT do, i.e. they can NOT jail you without a trial (With the exception of holding you for trial, which must be "Speedy&quot , the Government can NOT stop someone from speaking, or running a paper etc. The few mandates in the Bill of Rights, are more negative in practice then positive, i.e. you have a right to a Trial by Jury, a right to a "Speedy Trial". you have the right to your property, you have the right to exclude anyone from your property except when the Government had "probable cause" of some criminal activity, etc.

The Bill of Rights do NOT contain any POSITIVE RIGHTS, i.e. no right to housing, no right not to own a weapon, No Right to be issued a Weapon, etc. The Bill of Rights do not even give you the DUTY to speak, or type on the internet let alone require you to own a weapon. Those would be POSITIVE Rights.

On the other hand, the Federal, State and Local Government CAN make such POSITIVE ACTION by a Citizen a requirement by the simple act of passing a law making such POSITIVE ACTION a requirement. They could require you to serve in the Military (The Draft has always been ruled to be constitutional), they could require you to keep a weapon in your home (which was the case with the 1792 Militia Act, which was the law till 1903, not enforced, but still on the books). Nothing in the Bill of Rights forbids the Government from making such a requirement (For example, the Courts have long ruled that local government can REQUIRE all homes to be hooked up to sewerage, septic, water, electricity and other utilities, those again are things YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE BY LAW).

At present no one is requiring anyone to have a weapon. Even in those local governments that require everyone to have a weapon, no punishment is tied in with NOT having a weapon (Such laws requires everyone in the municipality to have a gun, but if you do not have one, no jail time, no fine, nothing).

You also have to remember, when the Second Amendment was first proposed by James Madison in his proposed Bill of Rights, it contain an exception for people with religious objections to owning weapons. That exception was removed when it was pointed out it could be used to take guns from people who opposed the Central Government, on the grounds their "Religion" forbade them to support said Government and as such thus their "Religion" forbade them to have guns. Congress had already fully accepted the concept that one's personal beliefs could be a "Religion" and feared that given that definition of "Religion" it could be used to strip people of their Right under the Second Amendment.

Thus, your refusal to have a weapon in your home is NOT in the Bill of Rights, it is solely the product of the law independent of the Constitution. ,As such the Government (Be it the Federal, State of Local Government) can change that law and make it a REQUIREMENT you have such a weapon. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits such a requirement.

Now, all of this is theoretical, for no one is proposing such mandatory weapons possession. On the other hand, the Second, as it is written, does NOT prohibit such a requirement and neither does the rest of the Bill of Rights. In simple terms, the Constitution will NOT protect you if the Government mandates weapons possession by someone like you. The Government has the ability to make such a requirement, it just has not since 1903 (And enforced such a requirement since the 1790s).

[toopers]

73. I would imagine that if the Federal government called it a tax . . . .

then it would not have a problem enforcing gun ownership laws, or taxing those who do not own guns. That is basically what seems to have happened with ACA.

[RebelOne]

41. That's right, but it is not enforced.

I lived there for a couple of years. Now I live in Woodstock, which is the town next store.

[onehandle]

7. Second Amendment Remedies. nt

[KeepItReal]

9. Update: Shooter found dead

Apparently self-inflicted wound

Per Twitter

[Arugula Latte]

57. Gawd, just do the self-inflicted shots BEFORE you take out other people.

[smartphone]

10. Fox local news just announced shooter found dead

No printed links to confirm as of yet.

I just had the Fox news feed on my computer.

[Botany]

14. 6 wounded and then the he shot himself

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fedex-shooting-results-multiple-injuries/story?id=23511924

[mikeysnot]

17. Guns everywhere YEAH!!!!!!!!

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

well at least it was not children and I hope they all survive the shootings.

Side note, these folks will be scarred for life.

[KamaAina]

46. And scarred.

[mikeysnot]

69. Hehehe thanks...

[upaloopa]

26. Wait hey gunners if everyone was armed why did

the shooter have to waste himself? Any gunner want to reply?

[Hoyt]

27. Right now, gun fanciers are trying to determine what kind of gun he had, to make sure they have one

in their weapons cache.

[villager]

30. Unless you can name every gun in the murder's arsenal accurately, there can be no background checks!

Because... snarking laughter and gun minutiae!

[Doctor_J]

62. and to make sure the article is accurate.

Because if it calls a Mac 10 an ak, then the whole story has to be discarded

[Brown Coat]

28. No idea,

Evidence seems to indicate that when a gunman is confronted by someone who is willing and able to fight back they tend to off themselves.

[upaloopa]

29. I never heard that one.

Why off yourself when someone is willing to do it for you?
"No wait, don't shoot I'll shoot myself for you."
The truth is more guns do not make you safe

[Brown Coat]

31. Then why do we need more LEO's on the street to combat crime?

[upaloopa]

33. There is a difference between LEO and citizens with guns.

I can't believe you don't get that.

[Brown Coat]

47. Yes, they shoot more unarmed people and dogs.

[link:http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/nyregion/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-officer-in-death-of-unarmed-youth.html|

[upaloopa]

48. So I should not be concerned with citizen shooters

Wow now I feel better.!

[Brown Coat]

49. Not CCW holders,

At least I wouldn't.

[upaloopa]

50. I wouldn't expect you to be.

I don't like anyone around me with a gun except cops and even then I feel apprehensive.
I have no respect or admiration for people so fucking paranoid they feel the need to carry a loaded gun. It borders on mental illness if not out right mental illness. The fact that the rest of society has to put up with it is a result of gun lobby money and nothing else.

[Hoyt]

52. Yeah, CCWers like Zimmerman, Loughner, Stawicki, Hasan, McLendon, Alexis, Dunn, etc., don't exist.

Not to mention all the spousal abuse, intimidation, bullying, accidents, etc., caused by permitted yahoos.

[Hoyt]

32. I think most of these losers intend to do that when they set out. Would love to see a citation

for your assertion, Brown_Coat. Promotional BS from the more-guns-in-more-places-crowd, ain't a citation.

[Brown Coat]

40. Of the top of my head.

[link:http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html|
Like it says in the article there is no way of knowing if the response from the CCW in fact caused the gunman to kill himself but it is my openion that it did. Gunman in Newton, CT shot himself when the cops came. Virginia Tech gunman shot himself. My memorie is a little hazy but I believe the Columbine gunmen both committed suicide as well. Sorry I would look for more articles but I have a busy afternoon. Can we keep things civil?

[Hoyt]

51. They plan on doing that when they leave home. The fact they shot themselves does not mean some yahoo

with a gun made them kill themselves. Seldom, if ever, do these murderers get away. While they may be deranged, they know when the leave home they will likely be killed, or kill themselves in the last act of defiance. Sometimes, they want to commit suicide.

More bluntly, we don't need you -- or other gun toters -- practicing in front of a mirror to play hero by drawing the gun you carry in your ankle holster. You are more likely to shoot a policeman or an innocent bystander trying to save your rear or play cowboy. Plus, the police would then be faced with at least two armed people.

[hack89]

35. Because very few people actually walk around with guns?

that would be my guess.

Reality is usually radically different from the fevered imaginings of anti-gun folks like yourself.

[upaloopa]

37. How soon you change your tune

You are so good at the game you can fart out of both sides of your mouth!

[hack89]

39. I have never advocated arming everyone.

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

so I am not sure why you think I am changing my tune.

I do support CCW with strict training and licensing requirement. I oppose open carry

[freshwest]

36. Yup. If everyone was armed, no crime. All shootings will be self-defense. The last one standing...

The one with the best aim and the fastest aim, will live to tell the tale. In that legal system, shoot outs are okay. Ambushes are frowned upon but only if they don't work. And the news *must be lying,* since *no one* killed themselves with their gun in the old western movies, did they?

That would show that he was a coward and didn't *stand his ground* with himself like he *should.* Which is where these guys got their ideas of how to govern the place.

And for sure those were all *private* emergency vehicles, since *public* ones cost taxes, and that's *tyranny.* Somalia and other Libertarian paradises is what is being enacted here. And they were cheering the 2012 GOP debates that anyone without means should die, because it's *socialism* to support being a Good Samaritarian.

This is the road to tribalism, which is only tyranny *if* you aren't as ruthless and heavily armed as criminal gangs, warlords and the filthy rich with their paid security. Not like any of us didn't see this coming:

Rand Paul feels safe, he has his own private security...

Despite my feeble attempt at above, I feel bad for the honest people working and trying to do their jobs and support their families in that area. But for this guy and those who promote this, none at all.

It's a fearful thing when we consider what the next generation will living with, since the propaganda is so pervasive that the Koch ALEC agenda is the only thing being heard and it stifles everyone's ability to call for a return to sanity. This is going to get a lot worse before anyone in that area dares to speak against the NRA, ALEC lobby.

After a while, *no one* will speak up for the freedom to work and live without a constant threat of violence. They will, like millions in history before them, *adapt* to hunkering down and do as the local demagogue tell them to live. The Paultaliban will be firmly in place.

This is what is expected in oligarchies where *Might Makes Right.* The majority will submit to this. They have no choice because they can't afford to resist and will live at the leisure of those with more wealth, as the government will bow out and let them. After all, that is their *2A solution,* that the citizens voted in.

Ironic it was all in the name of *freedom and liberty.* We've lost the ability to govern ourselves, obviously.

[geretogo]

56. This is just America's exceptionalism . What other country has a mass shooting every month ?

[Rocknrule]

58. $100 says the shooter was obsessed with Columbine

[Nihil]

64. Or Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook or Killeen or San Ysidro or Edmund or Fort Hood or ...

... Binghamton or Washington Navy Yard or Aurora or Manchester CT or Omaha or ...

My fingers would wear out before I could list all of the other gun-nut shootings in the USA
that *might* have influenced this particular nut to go out and do the same.

Alternatively, he was not influenced by any of them but was just Yet Another Murderous Prick
with easy access to guns.

[Rocknrule]

67. I said Columbine because even now, it seems to be considered the end-all-be-all shooting

by prospective mass murderers. And it probably always will be, no matter what else happens.

And what happened in Manchester CT?

[Nihil]

70. Another day, another shooting ... the hypotheses about the "cause" are mere trivia really.

August 3, 2010 - Manchester, Connecticut
Omar Thornton kills eight co-workers at Hartford Distributors before turning
the gun on himself. Thornton had been asked to resign for stealing and selling
alcoholic beverages.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

[Blue_Tires]

71. Identified as 19 y/o Geddy Kramer

A Cobb County police spokesperson said they have an idea as to the gunman's motive. They are interviewing other people who may have been involved and are checking surveillance video for clues.

A co-worker who asked not to be identified because he was Kramer's best friend, said that Kramer's problems at work may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

"Just how they treated him at work -- the management always complaining for him to do even more than what he was expected and him not getting paid enough," the co-worker said.

Bryanna Cunningham, a close friend of Kramer's, said she knew something was bothering him recently, but she would have never imagined what happened.

"I know he seemed a little depressed and I would talk to him about it but he's not very open. But when I did talked about it he'd, like, cut me off," Cunningham said.

Cunningham described Kramer as "really funny."

"If I was upset, he was very kind and I just don't know how this could have happened," Cunningham said.

Aiken described Kramer as "quiet."

"We would joke around sometimes. I mean, I never thought would do something like this," Aiken said.

Another co-worker, Collin Harrison, said that Kramer seemed upset on Friday and then didn't show up on Saturday. Harrison said that workers aren't required to wear uniforms in that part of the facility.

[Blue_Tires]

72. Heartbroken friend of shooter says ‘yesterday I was just in shock’

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/fedex-shooting-heartbroken-friend-of-shooter-says-/nfmHF/