3 wounded in shooting at Wal-Mart on Kietzkie

jfrey123 · Oct 29, 2010

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...

Coded-Dude · Oct 29, 2010

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.

COMMANDER1911 · Oct 29, 2010

Coded-Dude said:
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.

Coded-Dude · Oct 29, 2010

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.

COMMANDER1911 · Oct 29, 2010

Coded-Dude said:
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.

Coded-Dude · Oct 29, 2010

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.

jfrey123 · Oct 29, 2010

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.

Nevada carrier · Oct 29, 2010

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.

PrayingForWar · Oct 29, 2010

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.

HankT · Oct 29, 2010

COMMANDER1911 said:
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."

Dreamer · Oct 30, 2010

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...

Jack House · Oct 30, 2010

Dreamer said:
Sounds like LVPD needs to spend some time training in Reno, when it comes to handling MWAG situations...

Burn. :lol:

Nevada carrier said:
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.

COMMANDER1911 · Oct 30, 2010

HankT said:
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.

HankT · Oct 30, 2010

Jack House said:
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 . . .

Jack House said:
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 . . .

Felid`Maximus · Oct 30, 2010

HankT said:
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.

suntzu · Oct 30, 2010

Coded-Dude said:
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.

HankT · Oct 30, 2010

Felid`Maximus said:
HankT said:

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 . . .

Click to expand...

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?

Felid`Maximus · Oct 30, 2010

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.

suntzu · Oct 30, 2010

Felid`Maximus said:
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.

Felid`Maximus · Oct 30, 2010

I was referring to companies being found at fault for shootings for not banning guns.

3 wounded in shooting at Wal-Mart on Kietzkie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Activist Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Activist Member

Regular Member

Activist Member