Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: 3 wounded in shooting at Wal-Mart on Kietzkie

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    3 wounded in shooting at Wal-Mart on Kietzkie

    http://www.rgj.com/article/20101029/NEWS01/101029010


    Makes me wonder if they'll change the corporate policy afterward. So far it sounds like an ex employee to me, but I can't wait to see how the media spins it...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    3 people shot, all with non-life threatening wounds..... Whoever did this has no idea how to handle a firearm and should have no right to have one. People like this give gun owners a bad reputation.
    Last edited by Coded-Dude; 10-29-2010 at 03:01 PM.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  3. #3
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
    3 people shot, all with non-life threatening wounds..... Whoever did this has no idea how to handle a firearm and should have no right to have one. People like this give gun owners a bad reputation.
    So soley based on the fact that he can't shoot straight means he has no RIGHT to own a firearm? I thought everyone should have the right to own a firearm? I mean, I thought that was the purpose of our movement.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    yes the purpose of our movement is to allow any and all competent, law-abiding citizen the "right" to keep and bear arms(for self defense, among other things). this person obviously fails to meet both categories, and only causes further derailment of said cause. What would have happened if wal-mart employees were allowed to protect themselves by carrying firearms? Technically this person helps the cause(by being the idiot we need to protect ourselves from), but we all know that's not how the media or anti-gun nuts will spin this.
    Last edited by Coded-Dude; 10-29-2010 at 03:51 PM.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  5. #5
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
    yes the purpose of our movement is to allow any and all competent, law-abiding citizen the "right" to keep and bear arms(for self defense, among other things). this person obviously fails to meet both categories, and only causes further derailment of said cause. What would have happened if wal-mart employees were allowed to protect themselves by carrying firearms? Technically this person helps the cause(by being the idiot we need to protect ourselves from), but we all know that's not how the media or anti-gun nuts will spin this.
    Yes he has definatley "acted a fool" and probably should get his right taken away, but my point is that is should be taken away because he broke the law. Not because he can't shoot. I know a lot of good people who can't hit the broad side of a barn, but that doesnt mean they don't have the right to own a firearm.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    updates on the story:

    Update at 12:40 p.m.

    An RGJ Reporter on scene reports there were three marshals outside with guns drawn and two SWAT team members with guns drawn just approached the "home and living" entrance of the Wal-Mart and entered the store. Another seven police officers just went into the "garden shop" entrance with guns drawn. A few minutes later eight SWAT Team members also lined up at the home and living entrance and went inside.

    Update at 1:05 p.m.

    The following statement is posted on Wal-Mart's corporate website:

    "At approximately 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time this morning an associate came into one of our Reno, Nevada stores and shot three other associates, one critically.

    "The three injured associates have been taken to the hospital and the prognosis is good for all of them.

    "The store has been evacuated and we are working closely with law enforcement to resolve the situation.

    "Our thoughts and prayers are with our store associates, customers and others in the community there during such a traumatic time."

    Update at 1:10 p.m.

    An RGJ reporter on the scene said a gurney was just taken in through the "home and living" entrance.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471
    Guy's in custody now, without further incident. Apparently he was an employee coming in to meet with management today and decided to take some with him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    I smell a law suit brewing for unsafe working environment and bazillions in punitive damages against wally world. I wonder how many employees had their firearms locked in their car be cause there were not permitted by wall-mart to be armed on the job for their own personal protection.

    I'm curious also, how could any of this happen? There had to be something in the employees handbook that directed employees not to bring firearms to work. If this was the case, his copy must have been missing that page or would have never risked breaking policy to commit this crime.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    I guess what isn't acknowledged by the moobat media and other hoplophobes, but hopefully understood bt WalMart, is that any sociopath can walk into their sporting goods department and find a variety of "weapons" and do as much damage as they want. This incident probably ended without serious casualties simply because the assailant knew his mission could have been thwarted by anyone lawfully carrying in the store. We won't ever know for sure unless he was interviewed by someone without a (leftist) agenda.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by COMMANDER1911 View Post
    So soley based on the fact that he can't shoot straight means he has no RIGHT to own a firearm? I thought everyone should have the right to own a firearm? I mean, I thought that was the purpose of our movement.
    What do you mean by "solely based on the fact that he can't shoot straight," C1911?

    Accuracy is not what C-D was referring to when he said "Whoever did this has no idea how to handle a firearm and should have no right to have one."

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    So let me get this straight...

    A guy shopping in a Costco in Las Vegas--who is CCing and just minding his own business gets shot in the back and killed by LEOs, and that's OK?

    But a guy carries--AGAINST company policy--in Reno, and shoots THREE people, and he gets taken into custody?

    Sounds like LVPD needs to spend some time training in Reno, when it comes to handling MWAG situations...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Sounds like LVPD needs to spend some time training in Reno, when it comes to handling MWAG situations...
    Burn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    I'm curious also, how could any of this happen? There had to be something in the employees handbook that directed employees not to bring firearms to work. If this was the case, his copy must have been missing that page or would have never risked breaking policy to commit this crime.
    Anti-gun policies implemented by employers against employees are not there to protect lives, but to protect the bank accounts of the company. They could honestly careless if there's a mass shooting in their stores so long as business doesn't slow down and they don't get sued.

    Honestly, that should probably be one of the gun lobby's next big push, securing some immunity from lawsuits for employers with regards to employees lawfully carrying guns to work for self defense.

  13. #13
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    What do you mean by "solely based on the fact that he can't shoot straight," C1911?

    Accuracy is not what C-D was referring to when he said "Whoever did this has no idea how to handle a firearm and should have no right to have one."
    Very well. I misunderstood the post.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Anti-gun policies implemented by employers against employees are not there to protect lives, but to protect the bank accounts of the company. They could honestly careless if there's a mass shooting in their stores so long as business doesn't slow down and they don't get sued.
    LOL. But you'd be surprised how many pro-gunners actually do believe this.
    That's why it's funny . . .



    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Honestly, that should probably be one of the gun lobby's next big push, securing some immunity from lawsuits for employers with regards to employees lawfully carrying guns to work for self defense.
    This is correct. Without amelioration of the liabilities, no one can expect business entitites to assume more risk if it can be avoided.

    The only problem: where does the liability go? It just gets . . .eliminated? It just . . . vanishes?

    That doesn't sound like a very good deal for American citizens . . .

  15. #15
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post

    The only problem: where does the liability go? It just gets . . .eliminated? It just . . . vanishes?

    That doesn't sound like a very good deal for American citizens . . .
    There is no liability vanishing, because the company is in no way at fault except in the eyes of the absurd prosecutors.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 10-30-2010 at 05:29 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
    What would have happened if wal-mart employees were allowed to protect themselves by carrying firearms? Technically this person helps the cause(by being the idiot we need to protect ourselves from), but we all know that's not how the media or anti-gun nuts will spin this.
    Said employees would at least have had a fighting chance--as it stands most employers choose to totally disarm their employees while pretending to rely upon law enforcement for protection.

    This is exactly why employees--and not just walmart employees, should be allowed to carry firearms. As it stands when on the job most employers make their employees helpless victims--just like Virginia Tech turned its students into helpless victims.

  17. #17
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by HankT

    The only problem: where does the liability go? It just gets . . .eliminated? It just . . . vanishes?

    That doesn't sound like a very good deal for American citizens . . .
    There is no liability vanishing, because the company is in no way at fault except in the eyes of the absurd prosecutors.
    Is that your citation/interpretation of present law . . . or is it how you want things to be?

  18. #18
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    I believe companies should not be held liable, because it is senseless for them to be held liable.

    I don't know whether the average court would rule that a company is responsible for a shooting for failing to create a policy, (which would be ignored by anyone willing to commit murder,) against possession of a firearm. But the fear that a court might rule in such a way, or that they are likely to be sued even if they think they could win, undoubtedly and unfortunately sways some companies to create stupid policies.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 10-30-2010 at 07:43 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I believe companies should not be held liable, because it is senseless for them to be held liable.
    I take exactly the opposite view on this--I think a company that disarms its' employees or patrons should be held financially liable in the event a crime is committed on that property and someone is harmed as a result of being disarmed.

    Gun free zones should be held completely liable. If they choose to disarm their employees or customers then they should have to take responsibility for the safety of their employees and customers/patrons and should be liable for failure to do so.
    Last edited by suntzu; 10-30-2010 at 09:34 PM.

  20. #20
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    I was referring to companies being found at fault for shootings for not banning guns.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I was referring to companies being found at fault for shootings for not banning guns.
    Ohhh--well don't I feel silly.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    Looks like Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Washington have tried and failed to pass such legislation:

    http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm
    http://frpwa.com/?page_id=16
    Last edited by timf343; 10-31-2010 at 12:40 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    rights aren't given

    Quote Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
    yes the purpose of our movement is to allow any and all competent, law-abiding citizen the "right" to keep and bear arms(for self defense, among other things). this person obviously fails to meet both categories, and only causes further derailment of said cause. What would have happened if wal-mart employees were allowed to protect themselves by carrying firearms? Technically this person helps the cause(by being the idiot we need to protect ourselves from), but we all know that's not how the media or anti-gun nuts will spin this.
    A "right" is not "allowed", it is natural to people and can not be granted based on any persons or groups opinion.
    It can only be taken away for violating other peoples rights.

    TBG

  24. #24
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    i think you guys and girls are taking my post a little too literal. I said he should have no right...not that he should have never had the right. obviously he abused his right and deserves whatever punishment we can throw at him.

    of course a bullet is a lot cheaper than any litigation/penalty that he will face.

    had others not had their rights taken away, this bafoon would not have gotten away with violating so many rights of others.
    Last edited by Coded-Dude; 11-01-2010 at 03:50 PM.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Just FYI, I spent an hour wandering around that store this morning, OC my 1911. Nobody seemed to even notice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •