Another workplace shooting kills five.

[zanne]

Another pissed-off idiot with a gun killed five people, then shot himself. If the SCOTUS votes in favor of the NRA version of the constitution, we have alot more of this to look forward to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/26kentuckycnd.html?hp

[Oregone]

1. Why would you assume the NRA or SCOTUS have anything to do with future events like this?

Or this for that matter?

[zanne]

5. If the SCOTUS votes in favor of the NRA types...

They'll be lining up, case after case, to bring sensible gun control to court to be overturned. And they'll have the biggest lobby in Washington, the NRA, to help them out. Do you really think that the SCOTUS vote won't matter?

[slackmaster]

7. Translation

Anyone who disagrees with zanne isn't a sensible person.

[zanne]

14. I'm done trying to reason with you. Goodbye, Slackmaster. nt

[slackmaster]

16. That is such bullshit zanne, you never made an honest attempt to reason with me

Sayonara a ti.

[Oregone]

10. But why does that have anything to do with factory shootings?!?

Do you know this man and why he did this? Was he an NRA nut practicing his 2nd amendment rights, or a disgruntled, mentally disturbed pissed off, hopeless employee that didn't want to learn how to make a bomb? I don't know the answer to that...do you?


The ink doesn't even have to be cold on the newspaper (nor the blood on the ground) before someone tries to spin it and use it to push their own political viewpoints (whether or not they are even relevant to the issue at hand).

[krispos42]

36. An angry shooting is not exercising your 2nd Amendment rights

Just want to nip that in the bud.

[zanne]

40. So let me get this straight.

1) Carrying guns is a constitutional (and some say God-given) right.
2) People who use guns in a criminal way don't count in the grand scheme of things, because what they did was illegal. Therefore, this shooting and the deaths of six people has nothing to do with gun control.

Get a grip (and a brain).

[krispos42]

47. 1) Owning guns is Constitutional

2) Using guns to commit crimes is not protected by the Constitutional.
3) Since we do not know enough about how he came into posession of the gun, we can't yet make any valid argument either way about the relevence of this issue to gun-control laws.

How about we wait a day and let some facts come to light?

[Oregone]

48. You are missing how the language is being used...

I asked, is this man:

1) Practicing his 2nd amendment right by having and using arms on workers (in a manner of demonstration, on behalf of the ideals of the NRA for example).

or

2) Some mentally disturbed individual who snapped after an argument?


What is his motivation? Thoughtful and purposeful practice of rights (his interpretation of such), or mentally disturbed lashing out?

If it isn't the former, you bringing up the SCOTUS, the NRA and even gun rights is irrelevant to this event.

[zanne]

55. How do you know the shooter was mentally unstable?

People act on their rage sometimes. The difference between losing your temper without a gun and losing your temper with a gun can means the loss of life for many at one time.

[Oregone]

59. I DONT!

"Do you know this man and why he did this? Was he an NRA nut practicing his 2nd amendment rights, or a disgruntled, mentally disturbed pissed off, hopeless employee that didn't want to learn how to make a bomb? I don't know the answer to that...do you?"

I stated earlier in a post of mine you ignored/didn't read, that I have no idea what happened. Im not here posting links and spouting off about psychology and early prevention though. Thats the difference.

You have NO CLUE what the motivation of the gunman is but you are using this tragedy as a political football, making baseless assertions that the NRA and SCOTUS will cause more of these factory shootings. How can you claim these people will cause shootings when you do not even know what the cause of this factory shooting was? That is my original point.

At least let the blood dry before you start up with the talking points. People lost their fuckin lives and it seems to be a political game to you. That is absurd.

[zanne]

78. The motive for the shooting MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

HE HAD A GUN AND SHOT AND KILLED SIX PEOPLE.

[derby378]

82. Just because I have a gun, do you anticipate me doing the same thing?

Come on. Just because those six people died doesn't mean that I have to surrender my rights. It's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc argument you seem to be alluding to.

[Oregone]

83. It makes a big difference when you are using tragedy to spout off about the SCOTUS, NRA and 2nd Adm.

A factory shooting could have nothing to do with any of the crap you introduced in your argument. You have NO BASIS to suggest those entities/concepts will cause more similar factory shootings, and you know far too little at all about this one so far to even suggest them as a cause.

Its like using September 11th to talk about and justify the Iraq war (completely fuckn irrelevant).

Look, Im a pro-gun control guy so Im not just beating up on you because I disagree with you fundamentally. Rather, I think your approach to the gun control issue, and using this event in this manner, was distasteful, illogical, anti-intellectual, and disgusting. Really now, don't you want to be taken seriously?

[Bake]

33. And you think the DC ordinance is "sensible?"

I disagree.

But whattaya say, let's just ban every citizen from owning any firearm at all. Then only the government will have them. Oh, and the criminals. That leaves us law-abiding citizens at the mercy of both.

Bake

[zanne]

41. Be careful with that statement...

It's an antique.

[Bake]

51. How exactly is that an antique?

If the government effectively bans gun possession by private citizens, then only the government will HAVE guns. That puts us at the mercy of the government.

How can you argue that isn't the case?

Bake

[zanne]

Gun fanatics have been using that as a standard line for decades.

I believe a right-wing radio host was the first to say it.

[okieinpain]

68. I'm a gun fanatic in the making. with the behavior of people lately

I've damn sure been thinking about getting a gun for me, the misses, and our two daughters.

[Bake]

86. Perhaps because it is true.

It was true decades ago, and it's true today. Government should fear the people, not the other way around.

I trust the government about as far as I can throw it. And I trust you even less.

Bake

[pt22]

52. The Constitution is an antique too.

We can see what you think of it.

[zanne]

56. Muskets are antique, too. That's what the Constitution permits. nt

[pt22]

60. Oddly, my copy of the Constitution does not mention muskets.

I've noticed you often post on this subject, it's clear you hate guns but I have yet to see you propose a workable solution to the "problems" you perceive. Perhaps I missed it if you did; if so I apologize and wonder if you would be so kind as to repeat it. Thanks.

[zanne]

66. Muskets were being used when the Constitution was written.

I'm not against gun ownership, but I think that gun control laws should be much stricter. During the time of the signing of the Consitution, they didn't have handguns. They had muskets. You couldn't walk into your place of employment and blow six people away with a musket. It took too long to load. Also, you fail to realize that there is more than one interpretation of the Consitution. There are some who would say that a guns are necessary for a "well-regulated militia". Are you a "well-regulated militia"?

I'm hoping and praying that tomorrow's SCOTUS ruling will involve some common sense and state that, yes, gun ownership is constitutional, but unrestricted and unregulated ownership is not.

[pt22]

69. Okay fair enough but "much stricter" is pretty vague. You've obviously thought about this a lot, so

what specifically would you propose as more restrictions? I hope you're not under the impression that gun ownership is -now- unrestricted and unregulated...?

[derby378]

84. If you're a law-abiding American citizen, you're in the militia

:shrug:

[krispos42]

95. If you're a male between the ages of 17 and 45

Or in the National Guard.

I estimate that that would meant that about 55 million males and maybe 30,000 females are in the militia.

Seems a bit... discrimatory

[-..__...]

43. Well, I can promise you one thing...

we're sure going to try our damn hardest to do just that... starting with the Chicago handgun ban.

Speaking of the Heller case, we really won't know until tomorrow what waits for us in that sealed envelope.

The general consensus amongst the various firearms related forums, legal scholars, court watchers and even the Brady Campaign is that at a minimum the court will at least affirm an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

However, even that finding is not a guarantee (the speculation that Scalia is writing the opinion is a good omen though).

The court could conceivably remand it back to the lower court.

Ireally don't see that happening though.

[The Straight Story]

2. There ought to be laws against shooting people damnit!

Someday....

[NightWatcher]

3. flamebait. If people only had sharpened sticks you'd hear about workplace eye pokings

see the rash of stabbings in the UK. People will cause harm to others in any ways they can (throwing stones, sharp sticks, guns, chemical weapons...)

[zanne]

9. Spoken like a true caveman...

Unfortunately, sticks aren't being used much anymore. Guns are the weapon of preference now, and they can be used by people who don't want to take a chance at being harmed themselves. Guns are the easy way out.

[Oregone]

20. I do agree with this. Sticks and bombs make it much tougher for disgruntled factory workers...

Guns are easy

[caledesi]

65. Thank you for your concern. NT

[deaniac21]

80. The shooter didn't seem to mind being harmed at all.

[krispos42]

4. Yet the mass-shooting phenomemon is relatively recent

Ignoring social problems will lead to this stuff.



Despite media appearances to the contrary, 95% of all homicide victims were killed in single-victim incidences.

[zanne]

11. Social problems have been ignored since the beginning of time...

Gun usage, however, has risen. It's just another excuse for advocating gun violence.

[krispos42]

34. No, gun usage has NOT risen

Stop lying.

[zanne]

38. We could have "chart and graph" wars.

I could find a graph that would be completely the opposite of yours. It's all in who's doing the tabulating.

[krispos42]

62. We could, but you wouldn't win

the fact is that we are at a pretty good point in our history of crime. Pretty much all crime statistics are at or near their lowest points in a generation or so.

[slackmaster]

6. What on Earth does today's violent incident in Kentucky have to do with the DC handgun ban?

:crazy:

[zanne]

12. Don't play dumb.

If you're as intelligent as you always claim to be, you know very well how it's relevant.

[slackmaster]

22. News reports say the guy went home to get his gun

Even if he had it in his car, what difference does it make whether or not the state's law permitted him to have it there?

The guy was obviously unhinged. Laws had no effect on his behavior.

[Junkdrawer]

35. More details here (he may have been packing at work)...

...


The employee, a press operator, began arguing with a supervisor and was escorted from the building, the company's chief executive, Bud Philbrook, said.

As the employee was leaving, he took out a gun, shot the supervisor, then charged back into a break room and shot several employees. Then he returned to the floor and shot another employee before killing himself, Philbrook said.

"It's just total shock," Philbrook said. "It's something you read about in the paper."

It wasn't clear if the employee was carrying the gun, or if he retrieved it after the argument.

"We don't know if the gun was in the car or if he went somewhere to get it," Henderson police Lt. David Piller told CBS affiliate WLKY-TV.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/national/main4206962.shtml

[Junkdrawer]

8. Kentucky allows employees to have firearms in their cars...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3367020&mesg_id=3367020

[slackmaster]

13. Which has nothing to do with either DC v. Heller or today's shooting in KY

:hi:

[Junkdrawer]

21. What if it turns out that the shooter had the gun in his car?

Seems to me that the shorter the time between an argument and an employee's access to a gun, the more likely a tragedy will ensue.

[slackmaster]

23. That would mean he would have violated n-1 laws instead of n laws

It would have made no difference if keeping a gun in his car had not been legal.

The horses had already left the barn when he decided to shoot up the office.

[Junkdrawer]

25. Myself, I don't think an armed society is a polite society...

I think an armed society is a society with lots and lots of rage killings.

[zanne]

26. You mean, like this?

[Junkdrawer]

29. Yep. From what I understand, rage shootings VASTLY outnumber premeditated...

shootings.

And the time between rage and access to a gun matters.

[sharesunited]

28. Yes, a quickdraw society in which you shoot first and ask questions later.

[zanne]

18. Yes. And think of the violence that could have been avoided. nt

[krispos42]

44. Or the violence that could be caused

Somehow you never remember that part.

How do you know that, say, three years ago, you would have been attacked in your home by a certain Mr. X, except that five years ago Mr. X has the shit scared out of him after facing an armed homeowner. And as a result of that underwear-soiling incident, Mr. X stopped burglary and began stealing car stereos instead?

You don't.



It's really easy for you to sit there and bemoan gun deaths because you have names, dates, ages, locations, and other specifics to bolster your argument.

I don't have that. I can't say "Hey, Jimmy Johnson from Toledo would have been killed, except last year the criminal that would have done the killing had a career-altering encounter with a revolver". All I can point to is the fact that our homicide rate is down 40% from a mere 15 years ago.

And it is.






You know what? I'll take a slight uptick of mass shootings if the overall homicide rate drops by 40%.

[zanne]

46. It amazes me how you can be such an extremist on this subject.

I admit I haven't seen much of your writing on subjects other than guns, but you seem to be relatively intelligent. Did you have some kind of trauma?

[krispos42]

54. Nope, not a bit

I am just pointing out that guns, like the automobile, fire, electricity, etc., are used on a daily basis for both good and evil.

The thousands of defensive gun uses per day do have a demographic effect on crime. For example it keeps our burglary rates of occupied homes much lower than in England, which helps significantly in keeping assaults and rapes down. I think the rate in the UK is 40%, while here it's only 13%.


I also believe it's a right that needs to be respected, regardless of popularity. I don't buy it when Cheney says we have to give up rights to be safer, and I don't buy it when Sarah Brady says we have to give up rights to be safe.

Finally, I believe that our common goals (less crime, less murder) can be achieved by sticking to and advocating our more-traditional liberal agenda: progressive income tax, breaking up monopolies and trusts in media, energy, telecommunications, etc., stronger unions, protectionist tariffs and a return to sane fiscal and trade policies, recreational drug legalization, universal single-payer health insurance, quality free public education, cheap or free college, a decentralized energy grid with copious use of residential photovoltaics and wind turbines, and getting off of oil. And we'll have the added benefit of being a strong, better nation overall. Healthier, safer, happier, smarter, more powerful, more innovative, more involved, cleaner, richer, more comfortable.

Remvoing guns in a vacuum does not really change anything, and because it makes it harder to elect Democrats and therefore push the progressive ideals that we have, it's ultimately counter-productive.

[zanne]

57. Show me proof that burglaries are prevented because of guns.

It's pure BS.

[krispos42]

67. Maybe not...

<snip>

All this high-tech protection, urged on the householder by Pc Plod, may make your home more secure, but it makes you less so. From the burglar's point of view, the more advanced and impregnable the alarm systems become, the more it makes sense just to knock on the door and stab whoever answers.

Mr Monckton's killers thus made an entirely rational choice. He was a wealthy man, living in a prestigious neighbourhood of £3 million homes, and he presumably had the best security system to go with it. But time it right, get him to the front door, and the state-enforced impotence of the homeowner makes him as vulnerable as any old loser in a decrepit urine-sodden block on Broadwater Farm.

Various reassuring types, from police spokesmen to the Economist, described the stabbing of the Moncktons as a "burglary gone wrong". If only more burglaries could go right, they imply, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.

<more>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/07/do0702.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/12/07/ixopinion.html

[zanne]

71. Mark Steyn is the most rightwing gasbag in the UK.

I can see why you agree with him.

[krispos42]

72. Even rightwing gasbags can be statistically accurate

If the "hot" burglary rate of the UK is three times that of the US, then why?

[zanne]

73. I knew you were right-wing.

My suspicions have been confirmed. Why don't you go over to Guntards?

[krispos42]

75. Your criteria for "right wing"

...is extremely narrow

[zanne]

81. OK Where to you stand on...

Reproductive Rights, Civil Rights (including Affirmative Action), Environmental Policies (including our National Parks and guns therein, the Iraq War, Taxes (federal, state and city, Inheritance Tax, tax breaks for corporations (including gun manufacturers), lobbying (including the NRA), the Death Penalty, the ERA, Health insurance for all (single payer with free insurance for the poor), alternative energy, etc.

The list wouldn't be as long if you bothered to post in other forums on DU as much as you do in the Gun Forum.

[derby378]

89. Allow me...

Reproductive Rights: I'm pro-choice.

Environment: Stop global warming, force corporations to clean up their own mess, and increase drinking water standards for every American. Afterwards, if you still want to argue about guns in National Parks, fine.

Iraq: Obama should declare a pullout during his inauguration and pull every last American soldier out of Iraq within one month of being inaugurated.

Death Penalty: Eliminate racial bias in sentencing, and I'll reconsider it. Otherwise, we're looking at executing too many innocents.

Single Payer Healthcare: Boo-yah.

Alternative Energy: Yes to solar, hydro, geothermal, biodiesel, etc. A big NO to corn-based ethanol.

Taxes: Repeal all of the Bush tax cuts and start rebuilding the middle class.

[zanne]

90. My apologies...

I was wrong.

[derby378]

92. I suspect we're really not that different from each other...

[zanne]

93. It's just guns. nt

[krispos42]

91. Actually, I'm in GD and GD:P quite a bit

And the Lounge.

I'm pro-choice, only the woman's decision, no waiting periods or the forcing of literature or propoganda.

Civil rights: I support gay marriage as a inheirent human right that the countries of the world have refused to recognize for many centuries. I support making gay-bashing a hate crime because intent goes a long way towards punishment, and homophobia or racism is a bad "intent", in my book. I'm for affirmative action even though I don't like it, particularly. I just don't see any other way to overcome 400 years of institutinalized racism.

Enviromental policies: the sooner we get off of oil, the better. I like my car, but I realize that the purpose of a car is not to burn gas, it is to get my fat behind from Point A to Point B. I like my national and state forests and parks. If logging is to be done as a fire-management tool, I have no problem with private companies doing it as long as it is done responsibly and the government gets some kind of substantial licensing fee. I don't see a problem with a person licensed to carry a pistol in other parts of a state also carrying it in a state or federal forest.

Taxes: A single tax bracket, of 75%, on taxable income of $75k for an individual/$150k married. Also remove the FICA income limit. Corporate tax breaks must be reduced; I am especially angry at the way companies "shop around" states and cities for tax breaks and taxpayer funding. Tax breaks have their purposes, such as tax breaks for wind turbines and other long-term positive goals, but many of them are just pork. I would punish states and cities that offer tax breaks to big business, like the new stadiums being built for the Yankees and Twins. Inheiritence tax is good. Inheirented wealth begets an aristocracy. Make dividends and capital gains the same a earned income, not a special 15% tax bracket.

Lobbying: Argh. Tough one. Free speech versus the amplification effect of too much money in too few hands. I think publically-financed campaigns would go a long way towards reducing their influence. If it is possible, I think a system to donate to a candidate but conceal the source of the donations would also work. I don't know if it's possible, though. A tax bracket like I described above would also help reduce the influence of the super-wealthy. Remember, money equals free speech, the USSC says so, and right now the top few percentage points of income earners have as much money (and thus free speech) as the bottom 50% or so.

Death penalty: properly applied, no problem. Not out of vengence, but quite simply this: if the person is going to leave the prison on a gurney with a toe-tag, then get it over with. Keep them from being a object of fascination or admiration, keep them from giving interviews or writing a book, keep them from tormenting the relatives of their victims.

ERA: probably not required now, but I'd like to see it passed as a hedge against the future.

Universal single-payer health care: it's a no-brainer. Do it, and fuck the insurance companies.

Alternative energy; the sooner we get off of oil, the faster we can tell those misogynistic, theorcratic, repressive, oppressive, theocracies in the Middle East to go fuck themselves. Let CHINA deal with them. Give us our backwards-running electrical meters, government-subsidized low-interest loans for photovoltaics and wind turbines and solar water heaters. Legalize hemp and grow it for fiber and cellulose. Make wind-powered ethanol plants in the Midwest to distill it for fuel until the electric cars become widely available. Cover the southwest in mirrors and electrical turbines or Sterling-cycle heat engines to turn sunlight into electricity.

[zanne]

102. I'll look for your posts in the future, krispos! nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Anyone, or just those with a concelaed carry permit?

That law was just passed in Florida, but it only applies to those with concealed carry permits.

[Junkdrawer]

31. Found this:

GUNS AT WORK
Are businesses forced to allow guns in the workplace? Yes

Kentucky - State law forces employers and businesses to allow guns on their privately held property. This dangerous law seeks to turn companies into criminals if they ban guns on their private property.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ky#gaw

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glowing]

17. Obviously, this is more of an issue about a disgruntled worker..

pressures today on people to keep it together, keep smiling, and try to "hope" for anything good coming their way is getting a bit tedious and srained... There is going to be more and more of this snap... and people do things like harm others and themselves. In Florida the 211 number has had an increase in suicide calls due to stress and not being able to make it.. People crying and thinking it is better to off themselves than deal with no job, no home, and debt up to their ears.... This is not a good time and there will be more death before its done... it won't magically get better just because we elect a new president either.

[rurallib]

19. suppose everyone in that workplace had been packing?

Then that guy wouldn't have killed 5.

[zanne]

24. They probably were.

The old "Everybody should have a gun, then" argument is useless in such a scenario. You might have a gun on you, but most people who want to kill other people with a gun don't walk into a room and say "Okay people--I'm going to start shooting you now, so get your guns out to protect yourselves". (And you know that it's true).

[conspirator]

32. If they had guns then they were dumb

You if have to carry a weapon that weapon should not be more than 5 seconds away from readiness, otherwise, what's the point of carrying a weapon for self defense.

[zanne]

37. If you carry a gun that isn't more than 5 seconds away from readiness...

You have more problems that where you put your gun.

[malaise]

27. A sixth person has died

WTF!!!

[leftofthedial]

39. we need MORE GUNS!

If everyone had, for example, a tactical nuke on their person with a detonator switch , or if they commuted to work in say an Apache attack helicopter, we'd see a lot less of this kind of nonsense.

Damned anti-gun nuts! They're to blame!

[zanne]

42. PERSONAL NUKES FOR EVERYBODY!

Only then will we be exercising our Second Amendment Rights!

[tuckessee]

45. Better a few workplace shootings than one of these.

Police states with unarmed subjects can really rack up impressive numbers.

[zanne]

58. The state has nukes, tanks, chemical warfare...

But tuckesee's little gun is gonna keep us all free! That's just another excuse to buy more toys.

[Mojorabbit]

87. Worked in Vietnam

and in Iraq so far but that does not matter. The constitution matters.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Nothing More Intellectually Dumb Than When Someone Uses These Incidents To Yap About Gun Control.

Tell me you're done reasoning with me all you want, tell me I don't have a brain all you want, throw out whatever other petty ridiculous comments you want, but your stance is plain dumb as are your arguments for that stance. Your position is alarmist, exaggerated, extremist, irrational, and quite simply wrong. No amount of retorts you can throw out will change that. You look beyond silly, you just simply are too ingrained in your flawed position to recognize it.

[Junkdrawer]

50. Thoughtful people will be discussing Guns at Work laws after this...

That obviously won't include you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. I'm Thoughtful, I'm Just Not Irrational, Closed Minded And Dumb.

Thoughtful <> Smart

[LanternWaste]

96. Difficult to know who's right and who's not anymore.

Seems like everyone thinks that about themselves... :shrug:

Difficult to know who's right and who's not anymore.

[zanne]

70. HAH! nt

[zanne]

61. What was I thinking, using actual incidents to argue for gun control!

Why, I must be out of my mind to think of such an irrational use of today's news! And, speaking of extremist, you are part of a noisy, extremist MINORITY within the Democratic party.

[Mojorabbit]

76. You could at least

let the body's get cold and let more info come out before you start trotting out your agenda.

[bahrbearian]

77. If we have to let the bodies of victims of gun violence become Cold

We will never have a discussion about gun control and gun control loopholes, but I imagine thats your motive.

[Junkdrawer]

79. The SCOTUS DC decision was going to be announced today....

They decided to wait until tomorrow. By tomorrow, today's shooting will be long forgotten.

Goldfish have longer memories.

[Mojorabbit]

85. Sure

waiting for some information to come out is going to keep people from having a discussion. I am rolling my eyes. Vultures.
I am so glad you can discern my motives from where you are sitting.

[dysfunctional press]

63. how many people will be lined up for those 5 job openings?

nt

[ColbertWatcher]

64. I've added it to the list...

...of cities on NRA's "tour".

[-..__...]

104. Mockery and humor is all fine and well.

I like that!

Here's another one

[Vickers]

74. Your logic is...interesting. n/t

[HEyHEY]

88. Last week in Toyko a guy stabbed seven people to death

Gun/knife when someone loses it, it doesn't matter

[conspirator]

101. And since they were workmates I can imagine a worse scenario than mass shooting:

mass poisoning the coffee or water supply.

[pork medley]

94. 'going postal' by mark ames

By the mid 1990s, office and postal rage massacres invaded one of the last safe places in America: white middle-class schools. Although the first modern school massacre took place in 1996 in Moses Lake, Washington, resulting in three murders, it was the massacre during a prayer class, resulting in 5 dead, at West Paducah High in Kentucky, in 1997, that really shocked America and established schools as the next massacre stage. Before Paducah, two were killed and three wounded by a student in Bethel, An eye-opening look at the phenomenon of school and workplace shootings in America, Going Postal explores the rage-murder phenomenon that has plagued — and baffled — America for the last three decades, and offers some provocative answers to the oft-asked question, "Why?" By juxtaposing the historical place of rage in America with the social climate that has existed since the 1980s — when Reaganomics began to widen the gap between executive and average-worker earnings — the author crafts a convincing argument that these schoolyard and office massacres can be seen as modern-day slave rebellions. He presents many fascinating and unexpected cases in detail. Like slave rebellions, these massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes even inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Taking up where Bowling for Columbine left off, this book seeks to set these murders in their proper context and thereby reveal their meaning.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/1932360824

[beevul]

97. "The NRA version of the constitution"...

What an absurd thing to say...


Almost as absurd as claiming that "the right of the people" isn't really a "right of the people".


It is sad that people died, but in a society of over 200 million people, it is unavoidable.


And now, a moment with Carnac:





Boom, kapow, kerbam.




What is the sound certain heads might be making, after a ruling favorable to "the NRA version of the constitution".

[hogwyld]

98. Alright! Who did it?

Who left the cage doors open on the Gungeon? It's all right zanne, we may not win today, or tomorrow, but eventually, we will win.

[beevul]

99. As if...

As if posters that frequent the "gungeon" have opinions any less valid than yours or zannes...

The gun grabbers had their day, and it was ten plus years ago.

You will win this issue on or about the 12th of never .

[slackmaster]

100. Be careful what you wish for, hogwyld

You may find that the fundamental changes to our laws, checks, balances, right to privacy, property rights, etc. required to get where you think you want to go, don't necessarily add up to something you'd like.

[Edweird]

103. "Give up your rights or people will die"

Where have I heard that before.....?

This is just more of the same old shallow histrionics.
Exponentially more people die EVERY DAY from other causes.
Facts are my friends.