An employee at a transformer manufacturing company opened fire on his co-workers Thursday, killing three people before turning the gun on himself, police said.Five other ABB Inc. employees were wounded in the shooting in the company's factory in St. Louis, police said.
A law enforcement official identified the suspect as Timothy Hendron.
Hendron is among a group of ABB employees listed in a lawsuit filed in 2006 against administrators of the company's retirement plan. The suit, filed in federal court, accuses the administrators of, among other things, causing the plan to include "unreasonable and excessive" fees and expenses, paid by participants, without their knowledge and not used for their benefit or that of the plan.
No one seems to know if that was the motive. It doesn't sound to me like he was angry at the bosses or the company. It sounds more like he was angry at his colleagues, or that he just cracked up. Hopefully we'll hear more about that over the next days.
I wondered why no one shot back at him. Isn't St. Louis a gun-friendly place? Maybe some of the victims had guns too but with the element of surprise and all, the shooter got the jump on them. Or maybe he was just lucky and selected eight unarmed people.
What's your opinion? How can we keep people like this from having guns? Is this just the price we must pay for the "freedom" of exercising our god-given rights in America?
I'll tell you what, how about we tighten up the gun laws to the point that over say, a decade or so, we have about half the number of guns. The half that remain in circulation will be so strictly registered to their rightful owners that the flow of guns into the criminal world all but stops. Some gangsters will import them along with the drugs, sure, but the huge numbers that flow every year from the loose fingers of lawful gun owners dries up.
How's that sound? Please leave a comment.
So you admit that gun confiscation is your true goal.
ReplyDeleteI thought we were paranoid for thinking that?
The half that remain in circulation will be so strictly registered to their rightful owners that the flow of guns into the criminal world all but stops
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, and how does that work? How does registration keep me from committing a crime?
Furthermore, how exactly would registration keep criminals from getting their hands on guns. They're already flaunting our gun laws and committing multiple felonies in the process. How does registration magically put a stop to that?
Kaveman - Confiscation IS their goal. Reduction of guns among the American populace means preventing us from having guns.
Where is the term "confiscation" used?
ReplyDeleteGuns are the only illegal commodity that start out legal. This is the reason for the concept of "time to crime".
Whether it is from legal purchase or some other method, such as straw purchase, legal guns become crime guns.
Once you realize this, grasshopper, you are on your way to enlightenment.
So, this wouldn't have happened if any of my guns were registered? Okay then.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you want to bet the company bans guns?
No one shot back at him because no doubt the company restricted employees from carrying guns or even bringing them on property.
ReplyDeleteIn any case ... you don't think he could have planned a non-gun assault that would kill 4 people if he didn't have guns? People elsehwere in the world certainly manage to do so on a regular basis:
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/10/butchers-bill-non-gun-mass-murders.html
The bottom line is ... no matter how much you manage to limit guns, we'll never ban them completely in this country because we have a long lived and supported hunter culture. So even if I'm restricted to owning a single 3 round capacity shotgun, or even a double barreled shotgun, if I plan my attack around that and go to a place I know everyone is unarmed, how successful will I be in killing people?
We keep arguing about gun bans, which we know from experience in D.C., Chicago, the UK, and Australia won't matter ... when we should actually be talking about how to deal with violent people. The more we get sidetracked to arguing about regulating things instead of people, the less effective we'll be and the more of these killings will happen.
John us now by ending your constant arguing for gun bans and heavy restrictions and become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
First, Mikeb asks: "How can we keep people like this from having guns?"
ReplyDeleteThen, Mikeb answers: "I'll tell you what, how about we tighten up the gun laws to the point that over say, a decade or so, we have about half the number of guns. The half that remain in circulation will be so strictly registered to their rightful owners that the flow of guns into the criminal world all but stops."
Mikeb then asks: "How's that sound?"
It sounds like it doesn't "keep people like this from having guns."
Your "answer" does not respond to your own question.
"I wondered why no one shot back at him. "
ReplyDeleteHis place of employment is a gun free zone. Which is ironic considering they are sub-contractors in the firearms industry.
"Isn't St. Louis a gun-friendly place?"
I don't know, but I know they don't have a gun-friendly mayor.
"What's your opinion? How can we keep people like this from having guns?"
You can't. Even if you were to go door to door, ransack every house, and confiscate every gun you find, events like this will still happen.
"I'll tell you what, how about we tighten up the gun laws to the point that over say, a decade or so, we have about half the number of guns. The half that remain in circulation will be so strictly registered to their rightful owners that the flow of guns into the criminal world all but stops. "
Then what will you do when the rightful owner goes on a shooting spree with his registered gun like in Finland, Germany, England, etc?
"Where is the term "confiscation" used?"
ReplyDeletePoor Jade. He must think that guns only last a few years and then turn to dust.
Poor poor Jade.
why is it these gunmen go and shoot fellow co-workers and not go up into the administration area where the big shots work and take their frustration out on the right people?
ReplyDeleteWas there anywhere in my last post that said "JadeGold"? Nope,not JadeGold.
ReplyDeleteHow many people are going to have guns around if they can't shoot them? People seem to realize that the countryside is being developed.
Also, you fail to address the question "where do crime guns come from?" If not from legal sources, do they come from Mars?
How many guns would be sold if there was some form of accountability for the buyers so that if they would be punished if the guns ended up in criminals' hands?
Please address the question and not try to make fun of someone who you have no idea about. Thank you.
I wondered why no one shot back at him. Isn't St. Louis a gun-friendly place?
ReplyDeleteMost large corporate employers ban guns.
I'll tell you what, how about we tighten up the gun laws to the point that over say, a decade or so, we have about half the number of guns
Which ons will be confiscated to get to half? Guns rarely wear out.
Half won't be enough to reduce diversion of guns to crime, but it will be enough to reduce DGU by half.
Anonymous supports my point that guns start out legally owned so that's where the focus needs to be. Greater accountability for you legal gun owners would go a long way in cutting down the flow.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say anything about confiscation. It's you pro-gun guys who keep say that would be the only way to cut the numbers down. I don't believe that.
FishyJay said, "It sounds like it doesn't "keep people like this from having guns."
ReplyDeleteYour "answer" does not respond to your own question."
No, it wouldn't keep every nut who wants to shoot up the place from doing so, but it would some. Like Sevesteen pointed out, a 50% reduction in overall guns would not result in a 50% reduction in gun crime, but it would result in some resuction, would it not? If all guns start out legally owned, and all guns in criminal hands come from legitimate sources, a 50% reduction overall would have a major impact on the gun flow.
Do you doubt it?
"How many people are going to have guns around if they can't shoot them? People seem to realize that the countryside is being developed."
ReplyDeleteDevelopment has never stopped people from shooting.
There are always indoor ranges.
And this:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/02/build-a-75-foot-target-range-in-your-basement/
Empty swimming pools also make good suburban gun ranges. Not that i'd endorse such an activity.
It goes to show that if it ever came to a point where there were no gun ranges left, people will find a way.
Guns are the only illegal commodity that start out legal.
ReplyDeleteWow, you've really got to try hard to say stuff this dumb!
Mike W., Why is that so dumb? Do you have some really good comparisons to make to guns, things that start out legal and end up illegal?
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "No, it wouldn't keep every nut who wants to shoot up the place from doing so, but it would some. Like Sevesteen pointed out, a 50% reduction in overall guns would not result in a 50% reduction in gun crime, but it would result in some resuction, would it not? If all guns start out legally owned, and all guns in criminal hands come from legitimate sources, a 50% reduction overall would have a major impact on the gun flow."
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "Do you doubt it?"
Yes, I doubt it.
First, an overwhelming majority (I have not kept track) of the incidents that you use to promote this idea show NO evidence that you idea would have kept them from owning guns -- so why should I think that your idea would help in those cases?
Second, your idea makes a little more sense about possibly impeding the flow of guns to convicted criminals. But I doubt it because our criminals REALLY REALLY want guns, and a way will be found to supply that demand.