This Week in Shooting...Kansas Workplace

fureverywhere

fureverywhere

beloved friend who will always be with us in spiri
Location
Northern NJ, USA
https://gma.yahoo.com/kansas-workpl...0-wounded-010052334--abc-news-topstories.html

Several people were killed and 20-30 wounded in a shooting at a Kansas workplace and several other locations Thursday evening, authorities said.The shooter, an employee at Excel Industries -- one of the scenes -- was killed by police, Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton said in a press conference Thursday. Authorities know his identity but are withholding his name, Walton told KAKE.
According to the sheriff, there were possibly 4-7 dead, including the shooter.
At least 16 people were hospitalized -- four at Newton Medical Center, five at Wesley Hospital and seven at Via Christi Hospital.
Click to expand...
 

I guess the problem with gun owners is ANY controls against guns is going to result in zapping the second amendment. I don't know what to say...
 

Well, if you can't get rid of or limit the number of guns, what can be done to reduce the death toll?

Why do people run amok shooting people at random?
How is it that children are able to get their hands on loaded guns and shoot other children either accidentally or deliberately?
By what means do criminals get access to firearms? Ditto people with suicidal tendencies?

How much money will it take to get serious data that will help to answer these questions?

It isn't really good enough to respond to every shooting with hand wringing or arguments about the second amendment..
Can't a way be found to lower the carnage within the framework of the Constitution?
 
You know what's sad? You'll see a headline about a shooter and look to see if anyone posted it yet. Then you check the state and realize it's yet a new situation. Something I would think gun owners and anti-gun people could agree with. That something like assault rifles...I believe this type was used in the Sandy Hook tragedy
http://www.proguns.com/assaultrifles.asp

Do these need to be legal? I don't know zoo about hunting. But really if you wanted to go out and find a deer. Would you use one of these? My uncle was a hunter and I know I didn't see anything like this in his case.
 
A semi-automatic carbine (NOT an "assault" rifle) was used in the Sandy Hook shootings.

Yes, some deer hunters use AR-15s, as do target shooters and home defense users.
 
Warrigal said:
...
Why do people run amok shooting people at random?
How is it that children are able to get their hands on loaded guns and shoot other children either accidentally or deliberately?
By what means do criminals get access to firearms? Ditto people with suicidal tendencies?
How much money will it take to get serious data that will help to answer these questions?

It isn't really good enough to respond to every shooting with hand wringing or arguments about the second amendment..
Can't a way be found to lower the carnage within the framework of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Those are precisely the right questions, Warrigal. Since I haven't heard but a few in the political arena ask these questions, and no journalists come to mind, my question is, why the avoidance?
 
fureverywhere said:
But really educate me...what is the difference in rifles?
Click to expand...

Admittedly the terminology is mixed up and will change depending upon who you ask, but ...

To me, an "assault" rifle is something used by military and police. It is fully automatic (or may be what is called "selective fire", which means it gives you a choice of modes), meaning as long as you squeeze the trigger down bullets will fly.

A semi-automatic means you have to pull the trigger once for every bullet.

Maybe think machine gun verse rifle. Although gun purists would crucify me for that analogy, it's a simple way to think of their differences.
 
SifuPhil said:
Admittedly the terminology is mixed up and will change depending upon who you ask, but ...

To me, an "assault" rifle is something used by military and police. It is fully automatic (or may be what is called "selective fire", which means it gives you a choice of modes), meaning as long as you squeeze the trigger down bullets will fly.

A semi-automatic means you have to pull the trigger once for every bullet.

Maybe think machine gun verse rifle. Although gun purists would crucify me for that analogy, it's a simple way to think of their differences.
Click to expand...

And the reason any private citizen should be able to buy one of these legally is....??????????

Never mind. It's to kill a lot of people quickly.
 
Ameriscot said:
And the reason any private citizen should be able to buy one of these legally is....??????????
Click to expand...

It IS legal to buy these types of guns - even machine guns - but there is an extensive vetting process that has some people on a 10-year waiting list - at the minimum, it takes one year. You need to go through certain dealers, spend a lot of money on registrations and such, dot every "i" and cross every "t" while your FBI background check is being run.

Never mind. It's to kill a lot of people quickly.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that some 20-year-old punk is going to go through that process to get a gun?

The problem is that any gun that is big, black and scary-looking is automatically thought of as an "assault weapon" - not true.
 
SifuPhil said:
It IS legal to buy these types of guns - even machine guns - but there is an extensive vetting process that has some people on a 10-year waiting list - at the minimum, it takes one year. You need to go through certain dealers, spend a lot of money on registrations and such, dot every "i" and cross every "t" while your FBI background check is being run.



Do you really believe that some 20-year-old punk is going to go through that process to get a gun?

The problem is that any gun that is big, black and scary-looking is automatically thought of as an "assault weapon" - not true.
Click to expand...


Many of the mass murders are with legally obtained semi or automatic weapons.
 
Ameriscot said:
Many of the mass murders are with legally obtained semi or automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

I'm not positive, but I think semi- - NOT fully-automatic. If they ARE, they have been obtained illegally.

That's equal to someone stealing a car while drunk and running over several pedestrians - you don't stop selling cars.
 
Ex girlfriend provided this shooter who was a known ex con/criminal the guns he used. She will face charges.

https://gma.yahoo.com/kansas-shoote...-guns-him-005400426--abc-news-topstories.html

The killer was just served a protection order which usually involves domestic violence. Deputies said he was upset but so are most served. The person who got the order did not work at the factory.

http://www.people.com/article/kansas-shooting-gunman-identified-protection-order

To me it's a mindset that violence or a physical act carries more weight than one of restraint. It's one of selfishness worrying more about one's rage than their moral & legal obligations to society ie you are not supposed to kill or injure.

In this case especially with a convicted criminal perhaps more interviews and a search of their house for weapons should be a requirement with any court orders involving violence.
 
fureverywhere said:
I guess the problem with gun owners is ANY controls against guns is going to result in zapping the second amendment. I don't know what to say...
Click to expand...

I agree that some people should not have guns, obviously this person that did the killings. How do we separate out who should and who shouldn't own a gun though. The other "old standby of mine" is that yes, you can take the guns away from the people "willing" to abide by and new law that says we can no longer possess one, but that will not take the guns out of the hands of criminals intent on using them, on people.
 
fureverywhere said:
I mean you could do mass murder with a machete too. But guns that just keep spewing bullets make it so darn easy.
Click to expand...

Where and how are they getting guns like these? That's what needs to stop. Even back in the Wild West didn't certain people go and supply the American Indians with guns? I mean illegally, which I don't want to start a riot on this, so understand that I abhor the way the American Indians were treated. I may given them some guns too back then.
 
fureverywhere said:
I mean you could do mass murder with a machete too. But guns that just keep spewing bullets make it so darn easy.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which earlier this month a mass stabbing in Chicago left 6 dead.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...eople-found-dead-gage-park-home-officials-say

Even though a possible gang murder the gangster and the mass shooter have at least one thing in common besides being a sociopath and that's a unwiley sense of entitlement that the world owes them something and one dare not get in their way even if innocent or unassociated with the cause of their rage.
 
WhatInThe said:
Speaking of which earlier this month a mass stabbing in Chicago left 6 dead.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...eople-found-dead-gage-park-home-officials-say

Even though a possible gang murder the gangster and the mass shooter have at least one thing in common besides being a sociopath and that's a unwiley sense of entitlement that the world owes them something and one dare not get in their way even if innocent or unassociated with the cause of their rage.
Click to expand...

Yep - I once got into a debate with QS about this - she did not believe that I could take out at least that many people with a knife.

You can.
 
In this case especially with a convicted criminal perhaps more interviews and a search of their house for weapons should be a requirement with any court orders involving violence.
Click to expand...

National registration of all guns and who owns those guns would be necessary to allow the police to confiscate weapons from domestic violence perps and other people with proven violent tendencies.

People who are responsible would have to accept that their guns would have to be listed on a national register too. Is that too much to ask to reduce the opportunity for someone to go on a killing rampage?
 
Denise1952 said:
Where and how are they getting guns like these? That's what needs to stop. Even back in the Wild West didn't certain people go and supply the American Indians with guns? I mean illegally, which I don't want to start a riot on this, so understand that I abhor the way the American Indians were treated. I may given them some guns too back then.
Click to expand...

In cases where They are gang members or ex-convicts, they steal them, or buy or trade with others like them who have stolen them. And there are some cases where the shooter stole the gun(s) from their own parents or other family member.
 
The problem too comes from the manufacturers. Guns are way big business, and just by creating military weapons you know if you want one bad enough you'll find a way to get it. I can kind of understand the mindset of these workplace shooters though. The last job I had unceremoniously dumped me. Plus in the way of big corporate...they walk you to empty your locker, question every item you take out, shred your apron. Three years wasted...I can understand someone not wrapped so tight going in to take revenge. But fortunate for them that's not going to happen, besides karma bites.
 
Warrigal said:
National registration of all guns and who owns those guns would be necessary to allow the police to confiscate weapons from domestic violence perps and other people with proven violent tendencies.

People who are responsible would have to accept that their guns would have to be listed on a national register too. Is that too much to ask to reduce the opportunity for someone to go on a killing rampage?
Click to expand...

Actually it is because the criminal will get them illegally anyway as is for starters . In this case a gun registry wouldn't have done anything because he wouldn't have been on a list of gun owners. But a direct search of his premises for weapons other than kitchen knives might have helped. When I say weapons search that's it. That would be the scope of the warrant which would have to issued at the time of the retraining order. And that's dangerous ground because all the government or spiteful person has to claim is the owner made "a" threat which MIGHT lead to violence. Confiscations without criminal convictions are already a problem in the US, a registry would add more fuel to that fire.
 
In this case a gun registry wouldn't have done anything because he wouldn't have been on a list of gun owners
Click to expand...

In this case, no. However in other cases, particularly where a restraining order has been obtained for domestic violence, it would help the police to do their job.

In establishing a national gun register there has to be a time of amnesty when people are urged to register any weapons in their possession. After that, any search that results in discovery of unregistered firearms should result in confiscation and prosecution. Eventually there will be very few unregistered weapons in circulation and the police can concentrate more on illegal trafficking of guns to criminals.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top