I'm willing to bet on a bucket of opioids when he should've been on psych meds.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
'Multiple people' dead in shooting at MolsonCoors campus in Milwaukee
- Thread starter bwframe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I would say the opposite.
Psych meds are usually the cause for these shootings. Opioids will cause you to be super duper mellow. (I have years of experience on this one)
If he truly should have been on Psych meds but wasn't, then so be it but how often do the overprescribing doctors ever correctly diagnose people like this in general? Given that a broken clock is right twice a day. I've give the clock better odds.
Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway.
They have some dumb laws up there. You can't carry within 1000 ft of a school. If you do enter school property then the gun must be unloaded and locked in storage or you risk a Class 1 felony.
You can open carry without a license, but if you enter a vehicle the gun must be carried or stored above the window line so it's visible from the outside.
They have some dumb laws up there. You can't carry within 1000 ft of a school. If you do enter school property then the gun must be unloaded and locked in storage or you risk a Class 1 felony.
You can open carry without a license, but if you enter a vehicle the gun must be carried or stored above the window line so it's visible from the outside.
Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway.
They have some dumb laws up there. You can't carry within 1000 ft of a school. If you do enter school property then the gun must be unloaded and locked in storage or you risk a Class 1 felony.
You can open carry without a license, but if you enter a vehicle the gun must be carried or stored above the window line so it's visible from the outside.
Since you chimed in, if a business allows a universal policy of allowing employees to carry firearms, should that business be able to ensure proficiency and functionability of that weapon, on a regular basis? And if neither requirement is met, be able to deny a person from carrying at their business?
Looks like this business' policy failed to stop the murderer. He didn't listen to the company policy.Other than to know that no one would be shooting back...
First mistake is thinking that a business’s “no firearms” policy is meant to stop a murderer or protect anyone other than the business itself.
Seems like he had a rapid mental breakdown that started around the time he thought people were messing with his chairs.
I'd like to see what if any new medications he started taking that could cause hallucinations.
This just doesn't seem like the typical mass shooter to me. And what was the triggering event? He wasn't fired right?
If anyone who screams false flag or manchurian candidate everytime there's a mass shooting, does it for this one, I may not laugh at them.
Edit: ok looks like he was fired. So triggering event. Poor workplace security obviously if a freshly terminated employee can get back inside the same day. Also I bet it was a gun free zone for all the law abiding employees. Obviously murderers don't follow rules or laws.
I still wonder what meds this guy was on.
I think the meds we pump into people constantly like candy have a lot to do with the poor mental state of people in this country
Last edited:
How much is the "business itself," protected when they allow a disgruntled ex-employee to enter the premises? Is this company not going to be subject to lawsuits from all who were harmed for the security breach?
If the company cannot insure security of their staff, then should they be dictating whether that staff may provide their own security?
If the company cannot insure security of their staff, then should they be dictating whether that staff may provide their own security?
Exactly. They will and should be sued imo. They contributed to deaths. That's cold to say. But it's a fact.
Guaranteed they didn't allow employees to be armed.
And it's obvious their security sucked
Sure. I think a business should be able to set any rules they want. The devil is in the details of how those rules enforced.
A property owner can set a policy of no guns allowed, but as we've seen time and time again, those set on ignoring the policy have no difficulty in doing so.
As we've seen it works well until the murderer shows up and circumvents the entire security system. While Virginia Beach was a government building, there are significant similarities. Including an alleged suppressor.
Is anyone else here tired of hearing "and still no word on the motive" from the MSM? Like the causes to these disasters is a measurable event that they need to plug into some formula so they can have some precise reason?
There is no measurable precise reason. There is no rational reason. The reason is, in itself, irrational.
It boils down to power or more precisely perceived power. The same irrational thoughts that bring one people to go to war with another people on a larger scale is what makes people 'snap' and seek what they feel is restorative power by any means.
For example: road rage, traffic interferes with your ability to will yourself to a place or a schedule so you have to regain your power or will by any means. It isn't rational, it isn't sane, but who hasn't suffered from it to some degree? It isn't that our own minds aren't capable, the only variance is in the response.
As long as people have been in social groups they have positioned themselves in some sort of power order, who can I exert power over and who can have power over me. Challenge that perception and eventually the mind will abandon every other learned behavior in an attempt to restore the 'balance' at any cost.
Socially we have no way to prevent all possible causes of this break so we target the means. Gun bans, knife restrictions and so on.
But as long as people will be people and we retain our herd identity (and the desire to herd) we will have conflict... and it is all perceived before it was acted upon, sane or insane, rational or irrational. The only difference between rational and irrational is how many of the herd agree with you. So, regulate that...
There is no measurable precise reason. There is no rational reason. The reason is, in itself, irrational.
It boils down to power or more precisely perceived power. The same irrational thoughts that bring one people to go to war with another people on a larger scale is what makes people 'snap' and seek what they feel is restorative power by any means.
For example: road rage, traffic interferes with your ability to will yourself to a place or a schedule so you have to regain your power or will by any means. It isn't rational, it isn't sane, but who hasn't suffered from it to some degree? It isn't that our own minds aren't capable, the only variance is in the response.
As long as people have been in social groups they have positioned themselves in some sort of power order, who can I exert power over and who can have power over me. Challenge that perception and eventually the mind will abandon every other learned behavior in an attempt to restore the 'balance' at any cost.
Socially we have no way to prevent all possible causes of this break so we target the means. Gun bans, knife restrictions and so on.
But as long as people will be people and we retain our herd identity (and the desire to herd) we will have conflict... and it is all perceived before it was acted upon, sane or insane, rational or irrational. The only difference between rational and irrational is how many of the herd agree with you. So, regulate that...
I'm not arguing that, and I agree. The point I'm making, is that it's not is a business's best interests, at least most, to accommodate employees that want to carry firearms at work. That's simply a fact. People that complain about not being able to carry at work, don't seem to understand that.
It's all about the lawyers. Think about this every time you see a commercial for a personal injury attorney or class action lawsuit.
Bingo.
It's all about the lawyers. Think about this every time you see a commercial for a personal injury attorney or class action lawsuit.
I think it's more about the insurance. A company the size of Coors/Molson would be INSANE to allow their employees to carry. The costs associated with extending such a privilege would be prohibitive.
A few of the things you need to worry about:
-Mental cases
-Accidental/Negligent discharges
-Intimidation/Threats
-Horseplay
-Unintended victims/wrongful death
-Proficiency of use
-Condition of the weapon
Too many variables that make it seem like a really bad idea.
I can't believe we don't require a mental health evaluation to drive a car.
So I think we can agree on "litigation" as it combines insurance and lawyers.
Site Supporter
Members online
- ARxNut
- BIGred7173
- Taeverling
- Plumbous
- DDadams
- MrSmitty
- Tomahawkman
- JAL
- 9teen56f100
- Snip1420
- sapthol
- ISO400
- Creedmoor
- 762god
- mmpsteve
- Gunguy317
- Meatstick
- Squid556
- cstoltie
- Jay40
- Snapdragon
- PowderApe
- Rafterman
- snorko
- hopper68
- swamptick
- Dlawson28
- indyblue
- user11230706
- mbkintner
- wesnellans
- joshuamckee
- OD*
- DJM95B
- morve80
- crookcountygo
- Njorris
- yotehunt
- bub74
- rdbs505
- 1775usmarine
- vzdude
- blain
- Okimeister
- spymaxx
- cbhausen
- Chippp1961
- jrb1980
- Machinist68
- SolidDragon74
