I’m willing to listen. But the second a mass confiscation or banning of certain firearms, or a mandatory “buyback” program like Australia is considered, that’s it for me and a lot of people I know.
I’m in agreement with you about confiscation or mandatory buyback. Law-abiding citizens have a right to own guns. But we can’t even consider banning high capacity magazines or bump stocks? We all (well, most of us) agree that Tommy guns and hand grenades are and should be illegal. So it’s disingenuous to argue that adding other “too quickly lethal” items to the list isn’t simply a disagreement about degree. “We’ve already established your profession. Now we’re just haggling over price.” 
So much for those tight liberal regulations keeping criminals from followng laws. Who knew criminals dont follow laws?
Sooo… because a disgruntled employee will walk into his place of business and kill his co-workers despite it being illegal, we shouldn’t bother making it illegal? Because he’ll do it anyway? Good point.
So now I know why you’re pro-choice.
That’s why the boss and intern should have been carrying.
Maybe more like liberals do a better job at making victims.
Its their second amendment right.
And in this case both the boss and the first day intern would need to be carrying at the office to save their own lives as they fired the long time worker.
I’m going to say this as delicately as possible. You appear to be advocating for unfettered open carry in the workplace. If that ever becomes the norm, those who indulge in extreme ideological rants as a free speech right may well be the first ones shot.
No one wants there to be gun violence, climate change of any other problems. The issue is when one starts talking about what to do about it the majority of ideas sound ridiculous.
I know nothing of this case but I assuming he used a handgun? And even if he didn’t the vast majority of murders are committed by handguns because there easier to carry.
But I will see after a shooting we need to get rid of rifles. It won’t change anything. The only way to lower these murders are to try to identify who these people are and get them help as soon as the signs come apparent.
In a lot of these cases, when they start asking friends or neighbors about the killer, they get back “Weird” Isolated” “Bad tempur” “Abusive” “Violent”. No one intervenes until the bodies are on the ground.
The perp from Friday was already not legally able to have a weapon.
More laws won’t help.
1 Like
From yesterday’s coverage, it appears he was either
Soon to be let go, or
Already terminated from this employer.
Looks, IMO, more like issues with security at the employer—is this a closed facility that requires use of a badge or combination to enter?
Possibly also, as in Gavin de Becker’s “Gift of Fear”, there may be an issue of timing. Per Mr. de Becker, it is best to give problem employees every chance to improve, but cut them loose ASAP when they don’t. The rationale is they don’t have as much time to get used to the job or form connections there, both of which are more likely to provoke anger during termination than losing the job after a probation period.
Anyone know why he was terminated? Or how long the killer had worked there?
It is not, IMO, an issue of needing more restrictive gun laws. Connecticut has some of the strictest anti gun laws in the state. Yet that didn’t stop the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary from occurring.
More restrictive gun laws???
Almost everyone in our country can go buy 50000 guns if they want to. And even the ones that are restricted weren’t before they committed their 1st crime or were 1st diagnosed.
First off, I’m squarely in thr “We have to do something” camp. That said, what is the something? The 2nd Amendment folks DO have the U.S. Constitution on their side - that’s settled law. We can’t confiscate guns or force their buyback. Myself, I’m for solid background checks, 30-day literal cooling off periods, and restricted sales of weapons with high-capacity magazines or near auto firing rates.
1 Like
The 2nd amendment means we cannot fix this problem. The things you mentioned could help a hair but there is no fixing this problem.
…there is no fixing this problem.
IMO Dismissing problem employees before they have a lot of seniority may reduce the number of incidents like the murders in Aurora.
As time goes on, and people become more fed up with mass shootings, and the NRA gets more toothless, the 2nd Amendment itself may be in play. I think there are enough solid red states to block its repeal at that level, but the possibility exists. As a country, we were probably as dead-sey against gay marriage 20 years ago.
I’m just waiting for the day they start demanding firearm turn ins / seizures.
I’m NOT taunting you here - what will you do on that day? Are you willing to go to jail, or even to die on that hill? I’m genuinely curious about whether people will actually sacrifice their families (because, let’s face it, that’s what we’re talking about) for their guns.
It appears Gary Martin was a 15 year employee and had prior conviction of a violent offense in Mississippi. That offense, as in the article, was not committed with a firearm.
I wonder was he legally allowed to purchase the weapon he used with his record, and why he was terminated, and, if for other than downsizing, was he problematic as an employee for a long time.
