At Least Four People Killed in Shooting at Kansas Factory, Police Said

[tabasco]

Source: NY Times

As many as six people may have been killed at a manufacturing plant in Kansas on Thursday by a man who drove through at least two towns shooting a gun out his car window, the police said.

T. Walton, the sheriff of Harvey County, told reporters that the shooting occurred at a factory owned by Excel Industries, a company that makes riding mowers and other lawn care equipment, in Hesston.

He said that four to seven people, including the gunman, had been killed and that as many as 30 more were injured. The gunman was killed by law enforcement officers at the scene, he said.

“We have numerous people shot inside the building, we have a number of people killed inside the building,” the sheriff said at a news conference. “I don’t have an exact count for you right now.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/shooting-at-kansas-plant-leaves-4-to-7-people-dead.html?_r=0

---

Another day in America.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

1. If we will just keep cutting social services - shrinking government - all this...

go away.

More guns might help!

[PatrickforO]

2. Another assault weapon doing its job keeping us all safe.

[leftyladyfrommo]

3. Just saw is up to 7. Many more injured.

It was a long gun.

Small town of 3700. Upset employee.

[jalan48]

4. Gun Nuttery gone wild.

[crim son]

5. I hope this event doesn't affect anybody's right

to target shoot or hunt duck. Because that would be a tragedy.

[GGJohn]

6. Yes, it would be a tragedy to infringe on my right to own a firearm for hunting,

target shooting, and self defense.

[crim son]

7. We disagree.

You probably don't know me but I read your posts and I have no real interest in your unsurprising opinion. No offense.

[GGJohn]

11. No offense taken,

reasonable people can disagree on issues.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Correct

Don't reward them with conversation.

[GGJohn]

21. Yeah, because ignoring other opinions works so well.

[SansACause]

8. You don't have those rights.

You have a right to own a gun in order to form a well-regulated militia to protect the USA. Not for hunting. Not for target shooting. Not for self-defense.

[GGJohn]

12. I disagree. eom.

[Abouttime]

10. Please

The last thing we need is an ammosexual right now.
Go troll some other thread. Less than a week ago I was in Kalamazoo.
Most Americans are SICK of gun violence, me included.

[GGJohn]

13. Good for you,

I'm sick of violence also, but my firearms, and 99.9% of the other firearms in this country will never be used in a ciriminal or negligent manner, so why should I, as a law abiding American, have to pay a penalty for some asshat's crimes?

BTW, why is it that you and others here, who are opposed to firearms, always resort to sexual references?
Very weird.
And, I will comment on any thread that I want to, this is a discussion board after all and you aren't the arbiter of this site.

[LannyDeVaney]

15. I disagree strongly with your stance on guns ...

I realize I won't change your opinion, and I won't insult you, but in my personal life I don't even associate with people who share your beliefs about guns.

There are plenty of examples of law abiding Americans having to "pay a penalty for some ... crimes". Are you arguing for complete deregulation? Is a background check a "penalty" in your eyes? Maybe abolish driver's tests and let anyone drive a car?

[GGJohn]

17. Thank you for the insult free post.

It's your right to associate with whomever you want, I don't disagree with that.

I've said many, many times that there are certain regulations I agree with, background checks for ALL firearm transactions, better reporting of prohibited persons to NICS, better enforcement of our firearm law, open carry banned except in certain circumstances, like hunting, hiking in the back woods, etc.

[randys1]

53. And your reasonable approach should be rewarded by us anti gun folks, not attacked.

I believe we should get rid of all guns, you dont.

The reality of life will be somewhere in between, and I think we need to focus on that, as you are doing here, I congratulate you for doing that and for not getting angry at some of the negative comments.

The people here can be ADAMANTLY opposed to your position, as I am, and still recognize you are not a gun nut ammo-sexual or whatever the phrases are.

Those people exist, for sure, including a few here at DU, you are NOT one of them.

[GGJohn]

56. Really appreciate that randys1.

How have you been?
We lost a couple of calves a few nights ago to a mountain lion, oh well, they got to eat too, unfortunately, it was at the expense of our livestock, hopefully he/she doesn't get used to our farm as a restaurant.

Stay frosty my friend.

[beevul]

47. "...let anyone drive a car?"

We do that already.

Test are required only for licensing to drive on a PUBLIC road.

Roughly parallel to what we do with gun carry in public versus private.

[rjsquirrel]

26. Because

guns are sexual symbols for the men (it's mostly men) of the RKBA crowd.

It's an artificial dick and you know it, nice and long and hard and makes you feel tough and strong to hold it erect.

Viagra is safer.

[Marengo]

29. Being a gun owner and hunter, do you include yourself in that analysis?

[rjsquirrel]

30. No because I favor

strict gun control. And despise the NRA. My guns stay locked up and unloaded and disassembled except when I hunt.

A lot of real hunters (those of us who eat everything we shoot) feel this way. We know what guns can do.

[Marengo]

31. Guns? Why do you need more than one?

What type of game are you hunting?

[rjsquirrel]

33. Various

I have a shotgun and two rifles.

For a serious hunter that's not much.

But to reiterate I am radically pro gun control and anti NRA. And I think hunters who kill for sport and not food are douchebags.

[tabasco]

38. I support a ban on handguns and semi-autos.

I've never hunted with either of those. I think everybody should be allowed to have a bolt action and shotgun, (maybe lever action) for hunting. Handguns are the real problem as far as crime.

[GGJohn]

57. I have an AR-10 chambered in .308 for deer hunting, and I can convert it to .223 by changing the

upper receiver for predator control, why shouldn't I be allowed to use a weapon that is accurate, easy to use, ergonomic?

[tabasco]

59. The betterment of society.

The world does not revolve around you and your gun collection.

[GGJohn]

60. The betterment of society doesn't put food on my table,

the betterment of society doesn't protect my livestock,
the betterment of society doesn't protect myself and my family.
I'll keep my firearms for the reasons I stated above.

[Cavallo]

77. +10000

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. That's essentially Robert Bork's theory of 'moral harm':

"But, in any event, physical danger does not exhaust the categories of harms that society may seek to prevent by legislation, and no activity that society thinks immoral is
victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral."

Robert Bork, The Tempting of America, p. 123

He was saying that in defense of anti-sodomy laws.

Strange seeing the philosophies of a right-wing homophobe espoused at DU...

[Cavallo]

81. What?

I'm not espousing anyone's philosophy. So if I'm way left and don't want guns around or easily available that makes me on par with a right wing home-o-phobe? Sorry, but your accusation is waaaay out of line. And waaaay off topic. I think to come off with that means you have a very unhealthy view of guns and gun rights. And, you've well passed the just being a rude person mark.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Neither you nor society are harmed by someone *legally* carrying a gun in your vicinity. Period.

Illegally is another matter entirely, of course.

It's the height of arrogance to declare yourself spokesperson for all of society.
That something offends your sensibilities while not causing physical harm
is neither a cause of harm to you, nor a reason to outlaw that something.


So in that respect, you are indeed expressing Bork's theory of 'moral harm'.

There was a fine history book published a few years ago about the most notorious example
of a moral panic getting encoded into law, and what the results were:



I suggest you read it.

[Cavallo]

92. Me and my society are harmed by people legally carring guns who still should not have one every day.

Many mass shootings are by people legally carrying guns.

I call this a problem with how easy it is for just anyone to get a gun. And. no regular checks after they have one to see if their mental condition or physical condition has changed. Drugs, dementia, loss of a loved one making them suicidal, in serious need of anger management, etc.

Weakening gun laws only makes this worse.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. Unless those people *physically* harm you, then you are not harmed

And yet again you have elided several important points:

1: There is no right to not be afraid

2: You no more know what is "good for society" than Donald Trump, Pat Robertson,
or the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh spokesperson du jour does.

2: Save only for the claimed source of "harm", your position is identical to that of Robert Bork.

[Cavallo]

101. My good friend Kim Layfield died in the Racer Cafe Shooting in Seattle 3 years ago.

She was killed in the mass shooting there by a guy who police deemed could have a gun even tough his parents tried very hard to get it taken away - since he was mentally ill. He shot her in the head then came back when he was done and shot her in the head again - which he did to all of his victims. The cook miraculously lived after being shot in the head.

Good bye. And, welcome to being the first person I put on ignore.



Kim right before she died.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Your opinion is no more valid than those of Suzanna Hupp or John D. Green's:

Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 05:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost her parents to a restaurant shooting like your friends:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x352364

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x383792

John Dallas Green, who lost his daughter in the same incident that injured Gabby Giffords:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=355418

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021080736#post282

[Marengo]

71. A gun is not necessary for hunting...

I've been hunting since the 70's and have transitioned entirely to archery. Granted, the only game I hunt now are Elk and Mule deer.

[LanternWaste]

35. No more and no less weird than glamorized swimsuits photo spreads issues in a sports magazine

"always resort to sexual references? "

No more and no less weird than glamorized swimsuits photo spreads issues in a sports magazine, or short skirted cheerleaders required for NFL games.

[passiveporcupine]

23. That might be a trajedy for you,

But other people might not be killed because of it.

Which do you think is more important? You getting to keep your gun, or someone else getting to keep their life?

[Marengo]

32. What kind of firearms legislation do you support?

[passiveporcupine]

49. It's got nothing to do with my post n/t

[Marengo]

61. Why the dodge? It's the obvious question resulting from you apparent assertion...

the the poster you responded to should surrender his gun to save a life.

[beevul]

48. false dichotomy...

Which do you think is more important? You getting to keep your gun, or someone else getting to keep their life?

False dichotomy, and a very obvious one at that.

[passiveporcupine]

50. Nothing false about it

It's why we have so many staunch 2A defenders

[beevul]

52. Of course its a false dichotomy.

You getting to keep your gun, or someone else getting to keep their life?

Like I said, an obvious one, and even you know that in spite of your poor attempts at denial.

[passiveporcupine]

54. I suspect you are thinking it is a false dichotomy because

It's not the number of guns in America that are causing all our gun deaths.

but statistics will prove you wrong. Numbers of guns have a high correlation to numbers of deaths by gun in America. And too many people are so afraid of losing their gun, they are willing to fight to keep all guns (even unnecessary ones) just to keep them from being taken away...because they really don't want to lose their toys. And they fear the slippery slope...if you take away my automatic high mag rifle, you are eventually going to take all my guns (which is most likely never going to happen).

[beevul]

55. No, I am thinking its false because its very obviously and clearly false.

And too many people are so afraid of losing their gun, they are willing to fight to keep all guns (even unnecessary ones) just to keep them from being taken away...because they really don't want to lose their toys.

You are in no position to determine whats necessary or not, nor are you in a position to even decide what the criteria is to make such a determination.

And they fear the slippery slope...

Where as you pretend that a slippery slope does not exist, while ignoring the calls from others on your side of the debate, to ban common 100+ year old firearms technology.

...if you take away my automatic high mag rifle...

Spoken like a doctrinaire anti-gunner, exhibiting the typical ignorance of the subject matter while flinging poo.

...you are eventually going to take all my guns...

Yeah, just nevermind the daily call to ban this class or that class of guns.

Shame on us for taking anti-gunners at their word for what their intentions are.

[passiveporcupine]

58. We all have our opinions

But losing something you enjoy having is not a trajedy. Losing a life is.

[beevul]

64. Losing ANY rights is a tragedy.

Surely those who are interested, if they are interested enough, can figure out ways to save lives without sacrificing rights which roughly 3/4 of the American people value.

If they are interested enough...

[passiveporcupine]

66. Because of laws to protect society, many 'rights' have been lost

Because the health of society often outweighs the rights of individuals. If it truly is for the good of society or mankind, and cannot be done any other way, I have no problem with that.

But...if there is a way to fix the problem of gun violence and death in this country, without removing those individual rights, I have no problem with that either. Perhaps the gun owners should be looking into ways to control the violence and death so they can keep their 'rights', instead of fighting tooth and nail against society's attempts to find a fix.

I still cannot equate the right to own a gun with the right to live.

[beevul]

67. Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.

Because the health of society often outweighs the rights of individuals.

Except when it doesn't, like in the case of constitutionally protected rights.

If it tryly is for the good of society, and cannot be done any other way, I have no problem with that.

You and your gun control pushing colleagues have a long ways to go to prove that reducing gun deaths cannot be done any other way.

I still cannot equate the right to own a gun with the right to live.

Nor can I. The right to own a gun is protected from governmental sticky fingers, while the right to life can be taken by government.

Theres no comparison in the legal sense.

[passiveporcupine]

69. Are you defending this?

Nor can I. The right to own a gun is protected from governmental sticky fingers, while the right to life can be taken by government.

Theres no comparison in the legal sense.

Seriously? And you wonder why society has had enough?

[beevul]

70. Since when is pointing out objective obvious truth "defending" anything?

Since when is pointing out obvious objective truth "defending" anything?

The right to own a gun is protected from governmental sticky fingers, while the right to life can be taken by government.

Theres no comparison in the legal sense.

Are you seriously denying that what I wrote above is true?

Seriously? And you wonder why society has had enough?

Seriously? Attributing to me sentiment I never expressed?

[passiveporcupine]

72. Follow the train of thought in the thread.

You are the one who said it wasn't right to take any constitutional rights away. And then you go on to say owning a gun is constitutionally protected while living is not.

OK, you did say "Nor do I"...but your comments have left me confused...as you seem to be protecting the constitutional right to own a gun over the humans lives lost by guns.

How does that sound to someone who is not defending guns?

Except when it doesn't, like in the case of constitutionally protected rights.

so before it was constitutionally prohibited, it was a "right" to own a slave. Did that make it OK for society to have slaves...just because the constitution didn't prohibit it?

You and your gun control pushing colleagues have a long ways to go to prove that reducing gun deaths cannot be done any other way.

It would be in your interest to find a way to fix this, so the rest of society would quit trying to find a way for you. But you think gun owners should leave it to people who want fewer guns to fix it? That really doesn't even make any sense at all. This is kind of like trying to prove a negative. We all know that few guns will and does result in fewer gun deaths. The statistics show that. So I think maybe it's time gun owners got involved in trying to help society fix it's problem, instead of fighting tooth and nail against any gun laws.

[beevul]

74. I'm not so sure.

You are the one who said it wasn't right to take any constitutional rights away.

The unspoken implication was "Without good reasons that make good sense", and I stand by that characterization.

OK, you did say "Nor do I"...but your comments have left me confused...as you seem to be protecting the constitutional right to own a gun over the humans lives lost by guns.

I'm not protecting anything over anything else. You have your entities mixed up. I said the right to own a gun was more constitutionally protected than the right to life, which legally speaking, is factually true. The constitution/BOR protects one more than another. It is what it is.

How does that sound to someone who is not defending guns?

Theres something that keeps me awake at night: How I sound to people that hate guns.

so before it was constitutionally prohibited, it was a "right" to own a slave. Did that make it OK for society to have slaves...just because the constitution didn't prohibit it?

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, since the things we are discussing are not constitutional authorizations, they are proscriptions applicable only to government, which forbid certain acts by government.

It would be in your interest to find a way to fix this, so the rest of society would quit trying to find a way for you. But you think gun owners should leave it to people who want fewer guns to fix it? That really doesn't even make any sense at all. This is kind of like trying to prove a negative. We all know that few guns will and does result in fewer gun deaths. The statistics show that. So I think maybe it's time gun owners got involved in trying to help society fix it's problem, instead of fighting tooth and nail against any gun laws.

We also know that gun violence has gone down in spite of the increase of tens of millions of guns in civilian hands. Personally, I think we have about all the gun laws we are going to get, and there are other ways to fix this problem, rather than focusing on the people that aren't the problem in the first place, as most gun law proposals do.

[passiveporcupine]

75. I think you are thinking only of yourself

And how gun laws affect you, or maybe inconvenience you. I don't hate guns but I do think about the people who are killed by guns and their families and friends.

Do you have any suggestions on what society might do to stop mass killings from stressed out people, unstable people, or terrorists, or gangs and violence in poor urban areas? (well that one might be helped a lot by economic improvement for poverty stricken areas and low employment, and ending the war on drugs) Or even just random gun deaths from people who leave a loaded gun laying around and their kid grabs it?

I know the complaint...but cars kill more than guns. Why don't you try to stop cars? Well guess what. Self driving cars are so much safer than people driven cars, that some day that's pretty much all we will have. Because a healthy and caring society really does want to end unnecessary deaths wherever possible.

If this is important enough for you to armchair battle on social forums, then perhaps you could try to help with some ideas...or maybe you don't really care?

And for the record, I don't hate guns. I'm not fond of them, but I don't have a problem with some guns and their uses. I just think there are a lot of unnecessary guns in the wrong hands and people keep dying because of it.

[beevul]

80. Do you now.

I think you are thinking only of yourself And how gun laws affect you, or maybe inconvenience you.

Do you now. Suppose I tell you that I oppose bans on so called "assault weapons" (I do). Does that mean I own one or have some ambition to own one at some point? Nope. I don't own any and don't have any desire to.

Suppose I tell you that I'm against magazine capacity limits below standard (I am). Does that mean I own weapons that will be effected or have a desire to? Nope. None of my firearms have so called high capacity magazines, and I have no plans to own any.

Since that shoots down your initial hypothesis, why is it then, that I take those stances, do you think?

Do you have any suggestions on what society might do to stop mass killings from stressed out people, unstable people, or terrorists...

Sure. Think like a terrorist. Learn to see through a mass shooters eyes. Harden targets they may find desirable. Make such targets take far more time to gain entry to.

or gangs and violence in poor urban areas? (well that one might be helped a lot by economic improvement for poverty stricken areas and low employment, and ending the war on drugs)

Yup.

Or even just random gun deaths from people who leave a loaded gun laying around and their kid grabs it?

Education education education.

Because a healthy and caring society really does want to end unnecessary deaths wherever possible.

A healthy and caring society goes about doing so while respecting the rights of its citizenry, and its own limitations.

If this is important enough for you to armchair battle on social forums, then perhaps you could try to help with some ideas...or maybe you don't really care?

I've given many ideas over the years here on DU, but the people on your side of the issue are generally uninterested in anything that isn't "gun centric".

I'm not fond of them, but I don't have a problem with some guns and their uses.

Which means you DO have a problem with some guns. That's a deal breaker.

I just think there are a lot of unnecessary guns in the wrong hands and people keep dying because of it.

Focus on the wrong hands, and how to keep them away from guns, instead of focusing on the guns.

[passiveporcupine]

82. Which means you DO have a problem with some guns. That's a deal breaker.

I like your idea of give and take. It's all take. That's probably why you are not going to see an end to this battle.

[beevul]

84. You have got to be joking.

I like your idea of give and take. It's all take.

You have got to be joking. Every gun control law on the books state local and federal, were examples of 'give' with no corresponding 'take' from the pro-gun side, with perhaps a few token exceptions. Your characterization doesn't match history what so ever.

Want to see an example of how your side reacts to real compromise? Here, have a look:

Bloomberg gun-control group launches new ad against McAuliffe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172186703

That's probably why you are not going to see an end to this battle.

No, the reason we will probably never see an end to this battle, is because folks like you see only the guns, and therefore see only gun centric measures.

[passiveporcupine]

85. You offer up one instance of a rejected gun law compromise

And then you link to an article that pretty much explains why the gun bill being negotiated didn't really do much for controlling gun sales through the gun show loophole, or protect against gun ownership by domestic abusers.

This gun law was negotiated with the NRA. Are you kidding me? They have absolutely no interest in giving up anything.

[beevul]

86. Spin spin spin.

You offer up one instance of a rejected gun law compromise And then you link to an article that pretty much explains why the gun bill being negotiated, didn't really do much for controlling gun sales through the gun show loophole, or protect against gun ownership by domestic abusers.

Only if you believe the bloomberg founded gun control org over Governor McAuliffe, as you appear to.

Not to mention, 99 percent of ALL the other laws, were examples where there was NO compromise. You want to just ignore that don't you. I can imagine why: It destroys your talking points about 'compromise'.

This gun law was negotiated with the NRA. Are you kidding me? They have absolutely no interest in giving up anything.

Nevertheless, this is an example where there was actual compromise, give and take, and your side howls about it in anger still.

[passiveporcupine]

87. It was people in his own state who were part of that org

who were upset with him on this bill. I guess they don't count? Talk about spin.

I have not seen the wording of any of the other laws, but I have a strong feeling that your idea of compromise does not mean the same thing as mine. Mine would mean effective gun control laws that don't mean taking all your guns away. Yours would mean laws that don't do much, but add protections for gun owners.

Everything in that bill that you endorse as compromise, was voluntary. The part about abusers giving up their guns offered no way to enact or enforce it.

but in exchange for that, CC carriers got more protections?

[beevul]

89. That changes nothing...

It was people in his own state who were part of that org who were upset with him on this bill. I guess they don't count? Talk about spin.

That changes nothing. Before the 'compromise' the anti-gun folks got everything, the pro-gun side got nothing, and the anti-gun folks were happy with that. After the compromise, when BOTH sides got something, the anti-gun side howls with rage.

Case closed.

I have not seen the wording of any of the other laws, but I have a strong feeling that your idea of compromise does not mean the same thing as mine. Mine would mean effective gun control laws that don't mean taking all your guns away.

What are you ideas for 'effective' gun control laws, and what are you willing to give up in a compromise to get them?

but in exchange for that, CC carriers got more protections?

I'm pretty sure CC got a return to reciprocity which existed before the tinkering began.

[passiveporcupine]

90. Please show me where the anti gun supporters have ever gotten everything

I've not seen it.

After the compromise, when BOTH sides got something.

This is what I mean when I say you and I have a different opinion on compromise. The gun control people basically got nothing from this bill. It was not a compromise, it was a give-away.

What are you ideas for 'effective' gun control laws, and what are you willing to give up in a compromise to get them?

Not giving up lives is my biggest line in the sand.

Effective gun control laws would be making it harder for people to get a gun, like licensing and registration, having to pass background checks on all gun purchases. Also requirements that guns are stored safely, and insurance to make sure if your gun is used to kill someone there is insurance to cover the damages.

Owning guns should not be considered a constitutional right any more than anything else that people own. If you want to own something as potentially dangerous as a gun, you need to have a good reason to own one and be able to pass all obstacles to owning one. People are free to own cars now, but are not legal to drive them in public withoiut license and registration. Good reasons for owning a gun would be livestock protection, hunting, etc. Guns are just too dangerous to be owned for "sport" alone, unless you are into competition target practice, in which case, you could get a special license to own a gun for that purpose.

They are not safe even when purchased as self-protection, as in the end they kill more in the households who buy them for self-protection, than they protect. So, owning a gun for self-protection should only be available to certain people who "qualify" for that necessity.

Certain kinds of guns that make killing other humans easier (especially mass killings) have no place in our society today, other than in the military or on the police forces (and even then they should be limited to squads designed to tackle domestic violence and terrorism). I'd seriously like to see our community policing go sans-guns, but of course that will never happen when we have so many gun owners in the US.

What I'm willing to give up in exchange for this, is the idea of taking all guns away. Many people want to do that, and while I don't think it has a chance of hell in the US, I can certainly see why gun owners are frightened by the possibility laws could be passed to do that.

[beevul]

91. Then you, Sir, are blind.

Please show me where the anti gun supporters have ever gotten everything I've not seen it.

Then you, Sir, are blind. The NFA of 1934. The CGA of 1968. You could start with those. Gun owners/rights supporters got NOTHING from those. The only gains there were for anti-gunners. How many more examples would you like, because I have all day and sufficient google-fu.

This is what I mean when I say you and I have a different opinion on compromise. The gun control people basically got nothing from this bill. It was not a compromise, it was a give-away.

Before the compromise, there was CC reciprocity. Then there was a change that did away with reciprocity, with nothing given in return. Then there was the 'compromise' which was a result of a whole lot of folks angry about the CC changes, which returned reciprocity to its prior status quo, and gave your side things it did not previously have. If anything, your side was the only side that really got anything it didn't already have, at the end of it all.

Yet you feel you got nothing. That's because you have extreme views on what constitutes 'compromise' and 'gun control'.

Effective gun control laws would be making it harder for people to get a gun, like licensing and registration...

Deal breaker. Not just no, but HELL NO. Heres why:

Owning guns should not be considered a constitutional right any more than anything else that people own. If you want to own something as potentially dangerous as a gun, you need to have a good reason to own one and be able to pass all obstacles to owning one. People are free to own cars now, but are not legal to drive them in public withoiut license and registration. Good reasons for owning a gun would be livestock protection, hunting, etc. Guns are just too dangerous to be owned for "sport" alone, unless you are into competition target practice, in which case, you could get a special license to own a gun for that purpose.

We really don't have anything to talk about. You want it to be a privilege, and I insist that it remain a right. Theres no middle ground between the two, and yours is the extremist position between the two, well outside the mainstream of Americans.

There are no such obstacles for car ownership. People are free to own guns too, but are not legal to carry them in public without license.

No good reason is necessary to exercise a right.

They are not safe even when purchased as self-protection, as in the end they kill more in the households who buy them for self-protection, than they protect. So, owning a gun for self-protection should only be available to certain people who "qualify" for that necessity.

If you're going to cite Kellerman, you should at least give him credit, even though he is wrong.

Certain kinds of guns that make killing other humans easier (especially mass killings) have no place in our society today, other than in the military or on the police forces (and even then they should be limited to squads designed to tackle domestic violence and terrorism).

Negative ghost rider, you will not get another assault weapon ban, particularly when support for them is based on trumped up false and misleading talking points.

What I'm willing to give up in exchange for this, is the idea of taking all guns away. Many people want to do that, and while I don't think it has a chance of hell in the US, I can certainly see why gun owners are frightened by the possibility laws could be passed to do that.

Then you'll get nothing. Remember, you need the support of gun owners to get anything accomplished. We on the other hand, don't need anti-gunners to get anything done.

Maybe you should rethink your definition of 'compromise' with that in mind.

[passiveporcupine]

93. No maam, ignorance of old laws does not equate to being blind

Well, after looking up these two references of yours, I see no problem with any of the restrictions or requirements placed on firearms from the first one. But of course you knew that. And the fact that you apparently think the AFT act of 34 is wrong, shows me where you are coming from. I wonder if you think it should be legal for anyone to own a nuclear weapon.

You are citing laws that are old enough not to be on my wavelength, since I've only really been involved in the gun discussion since some of the mass shootings. Columbine was the first one that got my attention, and that was in 1999. If you really want to go back in time, consider some of the laws that have changed in your favor, where you no longer have to check your gun with the sheriff's office when you ride into town from the ranch. With a CC license you can even carry a loaded weapon in town. And an unloaded weapon in your vehicle, if it's not hidden (like hunting rifles).

On your second example, I think you meant GCA. And I thought you were for some of the things accomplished with this bill, such as:

banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns

.
Isn't this part of what you mean when you say there are other ways to stop shooting deaths without stronger gun control laws? Or did you mean that anyone who might not be safe around a gun should probably be locked up in a mental ward or prison...even before they have used a gun to hurt someone apparently, since it's the only way many of these people would ever be stopped? You seem willing to give up a lot of personal freedoms, like using surveillance, and locking people up, in exchange for the right to keep your guns. Or am I misreading your words?

I am so sad that there might be laws out there that require you to pay a tax and/or have a license to own a firearm. Guess what? every year I have to pay for a license to own my dogs, and also have to make sure my dogs are leashed when out in public. Plus I have to get rabies shots for my dogs before I can even get a license. Also, it is not legal to keep livestock in town, even chickens. And I believe it's not even legal to ride a horse on city streets in most non-rural areas, (except during a parade)

And why? Because the safety of our society is being protected by these laws. And I'm OK with that, even though I think the chicken thing is extreme). But if those are the laws that society feels it needs to keep disease and ugly smells out of it's cities, then so be it.

You are not the only one who has to follow societal laws, but you, maam, are in good company because Clarence Thomas is on your side. He even believes it is wrong to prevent domestic violence abusers from purchasing firearms. Yay Clarence.

You may be surprised at the lengths society will eventually go to protect it's citizens. Enjoy your guns while you have them, because the longer you resist laws to protect people from guns, the stronger the force to eliminate them will get.

You know why you don't have to be licensed or registered to buy a car? Because, in spite of the fact that a lot of people die in them, they are not ever purchased with the intent to use them as a deadly weapon, and you can't hide them under your clothing.

[beevul]

94. No, but ignorance of my point does.

No maam, ignorance of old laws does not equate to being blind

No, but ignorance of my point does.

Well, after looking up these two references of yours, I see no problem with any of the restrictions or requirements placed on firearms from the first one. But of course you knew that.

Did I say you would see a problem with them? Did I say I had a problem with them? The answer is No.

And the fact that you apparently think the AFT act of 34 is wrong, shows me where you are coming from. I wonder if you think it should be legal for anyone to own a nuclear weapon.

Right on cue. Here you come with a misrepresentation of what I have said and of the point I was making. For the second time, I never made the claim that the NFA was wrong in this exchange with you. You are attributing to me a sentiment I did not express.

The point was, that the GCA and the NFA are both examples where there was no compromise made - anti-gun side got it all, pro-gun side got nothing. I suspect you knew that.

You are citing laws that are old enough not to be on my wavelength, since I've only really been involved in the gun discussion since some of the mass shootings. Columbine was the first one that got my attention, and that was in 1999.

Admittedly then, you are discussing a subject that you don't have a thorough understanding of the history of.

If you really want to go back in time, consider some of the laws that have changed in your favor, where you no longer have to check your gun with the sheriff's office when you ride into town from the ranch. With a CC license you can even carry a loaded weapon in town. And an unloaded weapon in your vehicle, if it's not hidden (like hunting rifles).

And sure enough, an example comes walking in. A few towns in the old west doesn't make your point, neither does the fact that in that era, you were given your guns back at the gate when you left jail, sold a firearm if you could afford it, not background checked, not classified as a prohibited person for any offense, and not disarmed if you were just passing through.

On your second example, I think you meant GCA. And I thought you were for some of the things accomplished with this bill, such as:

banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns

The point was never whether one is for or against those things, the point was those are two examples where the anti-gun side got what it wanted, at least in part, and the pro-gun side got nothing. That's not 'compromise' by any definition.

Isn't this part of what you mean when you say there are other ways to stop shooting deaths without stronger gun control laws? Or did you mean that anyone who might not be safe around a gun should probably be locked up in a mental ward or prison...even before they have used a gun to hurt someone apparently, since it's the only way many of these people would ever be stopped?

Hey now, you're the one that wants to abolish the rights of 300+ million people, turning what is now a constitutionally protected right into a privilege, even before most people use a gun to hurt anyone, since it's the only way many of these people would ever be stopped.

Why are you trying to project that authoritarianism on to me?

Again, you're the one that wants to abolish the rights of 300+ million people, not me.

You seem willing to give up a lot of personal freedoms, like using surveillance, and locking people up, in exchange for the right to keep your guns. Or am I misreading your words?

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion since we haven't even touched on other personal freedoms. I wouldn't say 'misreading' so much as 'reading words that aren't there to begin with'.

Put simply, I don't NEED to give anything up to have and keep the right to keep my guns, except to fight to make sure that extremists like you never have any significant say in the matter.

I am so sad that there might be laws out there that require you to pay a tax and/or have a license to own a firearm.

Would you be equally sad if they applied parallel laws to speech too?

Guess what? every year I have to pay for a license to own my dogs, and also have to make sure my dogs are leashed when out in public. Plus I have to get rabies shots for my dogs before I can even get a license.

Guess what: Dog ownership isn't specifically constitutionally protected, like gun ownership is.

I'll bet that burns you up too.

Also, it is not legal to keep livestock in town, even chickens.

Towns vary. I've seen a number of towns with livestock in town, chickens too. But then I've been out and actually seen a great deal of America.

And I believe it's not even legal to ride a horse on city streets in most non-rural areas, (except during a parade)

Fortunately, your beliefs do not dictate reality.

And why? Because the safety of our society is being protected by these laws. And I'm OK with that, even though I think the chicken thing is extreme). But if those are the laws that society feels it needs to keep disease and ugly smells out of it's cities, then so be it.

What society may do to achieve its goals has its limits as well, I assume you're familiar with the bill of rights?

And, theres more to America than the big city, and trust me when I tell you, big cities are not the yardstick of how society functions. Get out and see more of the Country and you will figure that out for yourself, assuming you take off your blinders.

You may be surprised at the lengths society will eventually go to protect it's citizens. Enjoy your guns while you have them, because the longer you resist laws to protect people from guns, the stronger the force to eliminate them will get.

And you may be surprised and enraged at the limitations society has to work within to achieve those goals, and even more surprised how many times more people that want to see those limitations obeyed rather than eliminated.

Like I said, you are well out of the mainstream of Americans in your views. you're an anti-gun extremist. As such, I'm closer to the Democratic Party Platform than you are.

You know why you don't have to be licensed or registered to buy a car? Because, in spite of the fact that a lot of people die in them, they are not ever purchased with the intent to use them as a deadly weapon, and you can't hide them under your clothing.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that government was granted very little authority over personal private property to begin with.

[passiveporcupine]

95. there is really no point in continuing this because on this one issue we disagree

Guess what: Dog ownership isn't specifically constitutionally protected, like gun ownership is.

this should not be a constitutionally guaranteed right any more than anything else you own in this country, expect maybe land and home.

Sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Because this is the bedrock issue that allows me to believe that lives are more important than gun ownership.

[beevul]

96. I said that a post or two ago.

this should not be a constitutionally guaranteed right any more than anything else you own in this country, expect maybe land and home.

Your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Because this is the bedrock issue that allows me to believe that lives are more important than gun ownership.

In order to be able to believe that, one has to be a subscriber to the viewpoint that its either one or the other, as you do.

Most Americans don't hold that viewpoint, fortunately.

[Chicago1980]

9. Welcome to America

[Solly Mack]

14. Fucking piece of shit coward.

[Red Knight]

16. Now is not the time to talk about this

Now is the time to talk about the TERRORISTS who want to kill us! Fear! Fear! Fear! Immigrants! Shudder!

But just American nuts with guns? We shouldn't be discussing that--unless it's in regard to arming every man woman and child.

We really do live in Idiocracy.

[onehandle]

18. Scalia is dead.

The end is nigh for gun culture.

[GGJohn]

22. You keep saying that,

yet firearm rights keep marching on, but carry on culture warrior, carry on.

[riversedge]

27. Look how long it took for the anti-cig thinking to take hold. This too will take hold.

[GGJohn]

37. Uh huh,

you just keep believing that, meanwhile, firearm rights keep marching on.

[tabasco]

39. Really?

What kind of new firearm has been allowed under the law recently?

Full autos? Grenade launchers?

Times will change. America always catches up with the civilized world eventually. You cling to your guns until the day you die. Live in fear, if you call that living.

[GGJohn]

40. Full autos and Grenade launchers are allowed to own,

with the proper paper work and $200.00 tax stamp, those are quite legal to own.

You cling to your guns until the day you die. Live in fear, if you call that living.

Nice internet psychological eval Dr. Freud.

[tabasco]

41. And the same very strict regulations will apply to semi-autos and handguns

sooner than you think.

Have a great day and try not to shoot yourself!

[GGJohn]

42. Uh huh,

you just keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
You have a great day also and try not to get too paranoid about firearm owners.

[tabasco]

43. You just keep clinging to your arsenal

if it makes you feel safe. LOL.

[GGJohn]

44. My so called arsenal, which is the wrong term,

an arsenal is where firearms are stored, the word you're looking for is collection, consists mainly of firearms of historical value and very rarely are used, my main weapons are an AR-10 chambered in .308 for hunting, a.223 upper receiver for the AR-10 for predator control, a couple of modern handguns, a few shotguns, etc, and they're all kept in very secure safes.

So, yes, I do feel very safe, and not because of firearms.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Pew pew

East Gunistan.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. 3 victims dead, and the gunman; another 14 injured, 10 critically

Suspected gunman of deadly workplace shooting in Kansas identified as Cedric Ford

The suspected shooter who killed three people at Excel Industries in Hesston, Kansas, is Cedric Ford, Matt Jarrell, a co-worker and friend of Ford, tells CNN.

Jarrell witnessed at least one person being shot outside Excel.

The gunman killed three people during shootings that ended at a lawn care company in Kansas on Thursday, authorities said.

An additional 14 people were injured — 10 of whom are in critical condition at local hospitals.

http://pix11.com/2016/02/26/gunman-of-deadly-kansas-workplace-shooting-identified-as-cedric-ford/

[Archae]

28. How about we do something innovative on this case...

Blame the DAMN SHOOTER for his stupidity.

Not government, (hi Alex Jones!) not the gun, blame the fucking asshole.

[rjsquirrel]

34. Mo

There will always be angry, crazy, and stupid people. The difference in America is how easy it is for them to be armed with weapons designed for mass efficiency in killing people.

It's the guns. Not mental health. Not stupidity. Guns. Everywhere.

Kansas is a gun nutter paradise.

[beevul]

51. LOL.

There will always be angry, crazy, and stupid people.

They're even allowed to post on message boards when they're anti-gun, too.

It's the guns. Not mental health. Not stupidity. Guns. Everywhere.

If it were the guns, far more than .01 percent of them would be used to kill others.

But they aren't.

[LannyDeVaney]

36. Wow, I just looked up the Kansas gun laws ...

there basically aren't any. They stop just short of giving a gun to every newborn as they cut the cord.

[scubasteve76]

45. There's more to this story

Everyone is caught up on the issue of guns, but what about what this guy was going through? I'm not excusing him, but he was African American. How much pressure was he under being America's number one villain? Did he commit an evil, yes. Does this situation call for examining our ridiculous gun culture? Yes. But lets not forget other factors. How do we know what life was like for this guy, especially in today's times.

[Doctor Who]

62. Most insane post of the day.

[scubasteve76]

63. its just something to consider

Spike Lee mentioned the other day that black men feel like they have nothing to live for. They're prey out there in the world. Again, not to excuse this man's actions. But society needs to change.

[Doctor Who]

65. He was an ex-felon who was shooting people at random.

He was an ex-felon who had his girlfriend "straw purchase" an assault rifle and 40 cal. pistol for him. He shot people at random on his drive over, and killed a lady in the parking lot because she was in his way. As far as I'm concerned he was a piece of sh*t who deserves empathy from no one. His girlfriend has been arrested, and is facing serious jail time for helping facilitate his homicidal actions. I feel for the family's of the victims, not the POS who did the shooting.

[scubasteve76]

73. Fair enough

I just want to know what made him snap.....

[DustyJoe]

76. wayyyyyyy out there

Ford has several previous offenses in Florida over the last decade, including burglary, grand theft

excuses be damned, the man was a criminal

Doesn't have to be any specific race or culture to explain that this guy was in the habit of breaking laws large and small.

The idiot that supplied him the gun needs to be put away just like the San Bernadino shooters gun supplier. Buying guns for criminals because the current background check would deny the purchase. There is no enhanced gun laws that will ever keep guns out of criminal hands if they want one.

[Eugene]

46. Kansas Gunman Issued Restraining Order at Scene of Deadly Shooting Before Killings, Cops Say

Source: ABC News

Kansas Gunman Issued Restraining Order at Scene of Deadly Shooting Before Killings, Cops Say

By KELLY STEVENSONJULIA JACOBO EMILY SHAPIRO Feb 26, 2016, 9:40 AM ET

Cedric Larry Ford, who allegedly killed three people and injured 14 others Thursday before police killed him, had been served shortly before with a restraining order meant to keep him away from a former girlfriend, Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton said.

The order was served at Excel Industries -- where the suspect worked -- and the scene of the final and deadly shooting. Walton said Ford, 38, a Newton resident, was served with the order about 90 minutes before the first shooting, at about 3:30 p.m.

"It's normal when someone gets served a protection of abuse order" to be upset, Walton said this morning, explaining that Ford's behavior wasn't abnormal when he was served.

Walton told ABC News that investigators still have many interviews to conduct but, at this point, his domestic troubles appear to have possibly been a trigger.

Ford died in a gun battle when a police officer shot him despite taking fire. Walton said today Ford would have kept shooting if a police officer had not stopped him.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-shooter-issued-restraining-order-killings-cops/story?id=37214171

Source: Associated Press

Man who attacked Kansas factory is identified; restraining order may have led to rampage

By Associated Press
FEBRUARY 26, 2016 6:53 AM | REPORTING FROM HESSTON, KANSAS

Authorities have identified a man who opened fire on the central Kansas factory where he worked, killing three people and wounding many others, as 38-year-old Cedric Ford.

Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton said Friday that Ford was served with a protection from abuse order about 90 minutes before the attacks began Thursday evening. He says Ford shot and wounded three people before storming the Excel Industries lawnmower parts factory in Hesston and shooting 15 others, killing three of them. A police officer killed Ford during an exchange of gunfire.

Public records show that Ford has several previous offenses in Florida over the last decade, including burglary, grand theft and fleeing from an officer. Online records show he was released from the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections in February 2007.

In Kansas, he had a misdemeanor conviction in a 2008 fighting or brawling case and various traffic violations from 2014 and 2015.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-kansas-gunman-20160226-story.html

[Cavallo]

78. Yep, if you don't think they'd obey it, then its discouraged to get one.

I haven't followed this to know exactly what it's about.

If it's violence to his girlfriend, this is typical. Violence against women often takes out just as many men on the way.

[madville]

68. Turns out his ex-girlfriend bought the weapons for him

since he was already a prohibited person due to prior felonies. She is being charged in federal court, I hope she gets the whole 10 years per count against her.

[Liberty Sage]

83. Doubt it

They will paint her as a victim and let her off light. It's the guns fault after all, or society's, or his father's, or maybe it was just a bad day for him. Did he survive.

[Initech]

98. Just another day in gun country m

[Crunchy Frog]

99. These threads sicken me so much.

So many alleged "progressives" defending mass slaughter in the name of "freedom".

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Bullshit. No one is "defending mass slaughter"