America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

From NBC

A fired Oklahoma food processing plant worker who had tried to convert some of his co-workers to Islam beheaded one co-worker and seriously injured another before the owner of the plant shot him, police said Friday. After he was terminated from Vaughan Foods in Moore, Alton Nolen, 30, drove to another part of the facility where he attacked Colleen Hufford, 54, police said. He used a “standard” knife to behead her, police said. He then allegedly used the same knife to repeatedly stab Traci Johnson, 43. Some co-workers told police that he had recently converted to Islam and had been trying to convert them. Police said Nolen had no relationship with either victim.


Those wacky Muslims and their cray cray* Religion of Peace



*cray cray is how the kids these days say something is crazy

I believe it was the company CAO who popped him.

Yeah... and if more people were issued CCW's, there would be less victims.

God made man. Colt made 'em equal. Those women were no match for a man with a knife. If one of them had a gun.. they would have been.

More work place violence.

No terrorism here!

I wonder why this is not being called a hate crime which it appears to be. I also wonder why Eric Holder is not going there to investigate like he did in Ferguson. Could it be that a white christian person does not matter to our government? Could it be that a black Muslim will not be prosecuted for a hate crime by our government?

Now MACS, I'm gonna assume you're trolling because you know I don't think guns are evil. I have no need for one, and I am glad I've never owned one (because I am clumsy, like to screw around a lot, and over the years I've had many drunk and irresponsible friends). But I've never said someone else shouldn't own one.

I think this "if only someone with a gun were around" handwaving is disingenuous though. You have no idea what would have happened, only your idealized version. In this particular case, a couple people got stabbed/beheaded until someone with a gun was able to shoot him. In an idealized world, the first woman had a gun and shot him before anyone was hurt. But guess what, that's just a fantasy, "everything falling into place" dream. Could be the first woman was armed, the assailant chops her head off, takes her gun. shoots the second woman and shoots the guy who came to stop him... then goes on and shoots a few more people. Or in a different reality, the first woman bought a gun to protect herself, her kid gets into it, shoots his friend and himself... she kills herself out of depression (using pills, because women never shoot themselves) and is never even in the plant to be beheaded.

Its all make-believe MACS. If you feel like having a gun on you makes you safer, then by all means carry one... but don't pretend that every possible situation will automatically be better if there were someone armed around.

My point was they are all fantasy. Any of the stories, plus millions of other possible permutations, could have happened the instant you change something that fundamental. None of us are smart enough, or have enough knowledge, to decide which is the "most likely"... it's simply masturbation at that point.

This guy was just a nut case. People want to read into his conversion to Islam as the cause. You have to be mentally ill to do what he did.

I've know several Muslims when I was in college and they were pretty normal. I think the term is "Vodka Drinking Muslims".

I've know many more dangerous Christians than any other religion but I take them as being nut jobs and not representative of all Christians.

YMMV

+1 not to mention the Westboro Baptist Church.

One thing we do know is that when the knife wielding attacker came up against the guy with a gun, the gun won.

It probably would have been best if he didn't have that gun due to the risk that the attacker could have taken his gun and shot a bunch of additional people.

Drunk and irresponsible friends is a valid reason to not own a firearm? Stop by your nearest Army or Marine combat arms barracks.

So you would rather be a victim?

Would rather have a gun instead in being stuck in a situation where I wished I had one.

Grow a set.

[quote=QMPASH]If you're a responsible person, I see no reason for you not to be allowed to purchase a gun for hunting, protection or just collecting. On the other hand, guns should be under the same restrictions that cars are put under and for the same reason. Both are dangerous instrumentalities capable of causing severe injury or death when misused. Therefore, they should be kept out of the hands of known felons, minors (under 16 years of age) and people who have mental disorders. ALL gun owners should be registered and should have to undergo safety training before being issued a license. Automatic rifles, especially those with large magazines should not be sold unless they can be permanently disabled. And, if you have a problem with this, these are the same rules that apply to car ownership.[/quote


First of all, Who gets to decide who's responsible? Would you say the VP and his wife who think it's okay to fire a shotgun into the air from their deck are good candidates?

So based on your lame points here, so then should glass bottles....butter knives....hammers....You Don't need a GUN to kill another person, and I have to agree with Buckwheat in that this F'er was suffering from some mental imbalance. You folks who think safety training and limited capacity magazines are the answer make me chuckle. And fortunately @ least for now, The Second Amendment carries more weight than folks with personal opinions on who should and shouldn't have them and their reasons why.

Instrumentalities?? Now that's a dangerous word....I think

does it say anything about bullets?

I don't believe in using the sarcasm smiley...

He's not afriad, because he exercises his rights.

Do you only insure yourself on days you think are high risk?

Corrected that small tidbit for you.

This is a reason for more Chick-Fil-A's!

Your hands will be filled with chicken goodness instead of cold steel death dealing instruments.

Why? What statistics are you trying to suggest are important? What conclusion am I supposed to come to?

And finally, I've stated over, and over, and over and over again that these are my personal risk decisions, and that I've got no problem with anyone else making personal risk decisions that are different. Why is it so damn hard for you to get it through your head that I'm talking about personal choices?

And super-finally... personal risk decisions are based on personal information, not statistics (so your "FBI statistics" are kind of useless). If I know that I am generally an irresponsible person, and generally clumsy, and really like screwing around with new toys in a manner that's probably not safe for myself or the people around me, then I already know that I'm more likely to have a firearm "accidental discharge" than your general population. If I'm at a higher risk to shoot myself, simply because of my own clumsiness, drunkenness, poor choice of friends, poor choice of girlfriends etc etc then I have to take that into account when making a personal choice to have a firearm.

Seriously... why is this so hard to understand?

I wish Victor would stop trying to ban everyone from having guns.

I'm gonna buy you a gun victor... I don't know where you get off feeling safe while unarmed but that needs to end...

QMPASH,
BACKGROUND CHECKS A FAILURE. State Police

trainwreck01

09.30.14

In a stunning admission that their current background check/ gun buyer harassment scheme is a failure, the Oregon State Police have released statistics proving what we’ve said all along.

As you know, Governor Kitzahaber has required that every time a firearm’s purchase is denied, at least one State Police officer must leave patrol to “investigate.” While the OSP’s directive says the investigating officer must be told the reason for the denial, they virtually never are.

Now the OSP has provided details that demonstrate what a staggering waste of time this policy is.

According to an Executive Summary “on the investigations the Oregon State Police (OSP) is conducting regarding denied firearm transactions through the Firearm Instant Check System (FICS) Unit” of the 331 “denial” investigations only 8 people have been arrested. That’s a total of only 2.41% of the people denied!

And of course, there is no way of knowing how many of the people taken into custody were arrested for actual offenses and how many were victims of the same sloppy record keeping that kept most of the other 97% from completing transfers.

Of the 12 people reported to have been denied because of “mental health” we know of at least one who was clearly denied for false reasons.

Another buyer who was issued a “citation in lieu of custody” was told he had to appear in court and when he inquired about his court date was told everything had been dropped!

Even more surprising was the reported statistic that of the 40 people who were denied because they were “wanted”only 4 were actually arrested! The State Police describe a person who is “wanted” as having an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

90% of the people who were denied because they were “wanted” walked out of the gun store. 4 people who were denied because they were “wanted” are listed in the category of “Investigation Complete-No Action.” The State Police list this as “Trooper finished investigation and determined extraneous circumstances did not warrant an arrest,citation or any other action.”

Of the 331 denials 40 were because the OSP determined that the gun they were trying to buy was stolen. That hardly makes the buyer a dangerous person.

The anti-gun crowd is eager to report the number of firearms purchase denials as evidence that the failed background check system is a great success. But three factors make this claim absurd.

First, as is clearly demonstrated by the numbers provided by the OSP, the vast majority of people who are denied have not been proven to have done anything wrong.

Second, assuming that the OSP’s numbers are accurate, (which we can’t) only a tiny fraction of the people who are denied are arrested, meaning that if they truly are dangerous and should not have firearms, they are still free to walk the streets. So pretending that a denial has any effect on crime is, on it’s face, ridiculous.

Third, in virtually every case of a mass shooting, a mandatory background check would have had no effect. The shooters either PASSED the check or would never have been subject to one because, for example, they stole the guns used.

Keep in mind that we have faced an ongoing effort to expand this failed system to transfers made between friends and family members. In the last few weeks the Firearms Instant Check System has had massive delays with dealers facing waiting times for what transfers do take place at 350% or more over normal waits. In some cases the FICS system is simply not working at all.

Washington voters are now facing a ballot measure that will expand this failed system to private transfers. Nevada is following their lead. We will almost certainly face a similar measure here. Make no mistake, background checks are gun registration schemes. Efforts to expand them are being funded by billionaires with armed guards.

The battle is coming.

Get ready.

Yeah bibles, blankets and saddle soap stopped arrows just fine.

Should we say well behaved gentleman