Reply
Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:32 am
How is this possible when all of the federal buildings have those signs saying "no firearms allowed"? Sad when the decent, honest law abiding are forced to disarm and work in a building that essentially invites the shooter to come in unchallenged.
7 Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
GOLETA, Calif. (AP) - A female ex-postal worker opened fire at a mail processing plant, killing six people before committing suicide, authorities said early Tuesday.
One other person was listed in critical condition, authorities said.
Deputies responding to a call of shots fired late Monday initially found two people dead outside the plant.
Two wounded women were located inside and were taken to a hospital. One died and the other was listed in critical condition early Tuesday with a gunshot wound to the head.
During a search of the massive mail complex, deputies found four additional bodies, including one believed to be the female shooter, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Jim Anderson said. The shooter, who was not identified, died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound, he said.
"We do not believe there is any additional threat to the community," Anderson said.
Postal employee Charles Kronick told KEYT-TV in Santa Barbara that he was inside the building when shots rang out. Some 50 to 60 employees were seen running from the plant.
"I heard something that sounded like a pop, and then I heard a couple seconds later, another pop, pop, pop," Kronick said.
His boss came running over and told him to get out of the building, Kronick said, adding "We all hightailed it out real quick."
The victims' names were not immediately released. Sheriffs' Sgt. Erik Raney said all the victims were believed to be current employees.
The postal station is located just a few blocks from the University of California, Santa Barbara, about 100 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
I saw that, cj. Adds new meaning to the phrase "going postal."
I'm with you, however. How did she slip a gun by all those guards?
Actually I think that's exactly where "going postal" came from.
Really weird that it keeps happening. I wonder what combination of factors?
employee population control, a Bush faith-based initive for lowering retirement costs.
Postal workers are over-supervised, for one thing--an article i readin 1997 in the NYT said there are five supervisory staff to each seven sorting and delivery staff (everyone but the folks at the front counter).
I can think, however, of few more boneheaded solutions that to make sure that everyone everywhere is packing heat 24/7 . . . though i'm not surprised that CJ attempts to exploit the news of a tragedy to suggest that that is the answer . . .
Indeed.
When guns are available to any nut...this is what happens...regularly, in the US, it seems.
I was reading some alarming stats on how many IRL shootings American kids see in certain areas of big cities...and how often in the US a child is shot...once every 90 minutes, I think it was, but I would have to check.
How this event is an argument for MORE guns in the community escapes me...
D'artagnan wrote:How this event is an argument for MORE guns in the community escapes me...
Obviously you did not read my post, it's all a matter of efficientcy, more guns fewer retirement costs.
D'artagnan wrote:How this event is an argument for MORE guns in the community escapes me...
I think cjhsa was implying that gun control laws did not keep this person from killing 6 people but they did keep law abiding citizens from possibly stopping her before she could rack up such a tally.
Yeah, people drive over the speed limit and there's still fatal accidents so let's abolish speed limits. good thinking.
That is a poor analogy.
It is completely reasonable to think that if there was a person there with a concealed weapon that they would have been able to stop the person before she killed so many. Not a definite, but possible.
right, and it is a good analogy, although it requires the ability to reason.
Bearing arms is a constitutional right and gives peole the ability to defend themselves.
Speeding is not a consitutional right nor does it give anybody the ability to defend themselves.
Your reasoning is faulty and the analogy is poor.
the analogy is
there are laws to control gun use.
they (the laws) don't always prevent illegal gun use/ownership.
conclusion=we shouldn't have gun control laws.
---------------------------------
there are laws to control highway safty (speed limits)
they (the speed limits) don't always prevent accidents.
conclusion=we shouldn't have speed limits.
The senario still skirts around the facts that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and gives one the ability to defend yourself.
Do you support all gun control laws?
ps. I am not a gun owner.
The reason we need guns is, it's impossible to run fast enough to carry bullets at a deadly velocity.
I choose to defend myself and my family. You can do whatever you want. Yes, an entirely armed workforce would have prevented this today. Watch me and learn.
Thanks JP.
An entire armed workforce would make this today look like child's play.
Really? I take it you wish to disarm the police as well? Duh!