Not as drastic, but a train had 10 blocks of traffic held up for 34 minutes yesterday. Traffic was backed up from just south of Lincoln to 54. What is ironic is the train tracks are just south of the fire station on Broadway and had there been a fire to the south, there was no way for the fire crew of that station to get there.
As per the mall shooting it sounds like the kid that did it just had no hope for life. He was a despised reject. His family rejected him, his girl rejected him and his job rejected him. He was just a born loser and decided he always would be and rather than face a difficult life, he choose to end it now and take some others with him because he was angry at the world. Could he have been helped? I don’t know.
…he choose to end it now and take some others with him because he was angry at the world. Could he have been helped? I don’t know.
Posted by: Kev | December 06, 2007 at 06:37 AM
Used to be when people got to that point, they just jumped off a bridge or quietly blew their brains out. Now they feel a need to make a statement, and that statement seems to include taking as many innocents with them as possible.
It’s a strange society we live in.
In 1996, then-Gov. Huckabee joined the discussion, saying he planned to commute DuMond’s sentence in part because evidence in the case was “questionable.” Huckabee’s commutation announcement set off bitter complaints. On Jan. 16, 1997, he reversed the decision and denied clemency, although he told DuMond in a letter “my desire is that you be released from prison.”http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-huckabeedec06,1,1469690.story
Looks like this Republican has his own Willie Horton.
The Willie Horton comparison is flawed. Dukakis presided over a policy, but had nothing personally involved in the Willie Horton case.
Huckabee, on the other hand, got caught up in the anti-Clintonism of the mid 1990s and made DuMond’s release a personal political cause.
DuMond had previously turned state’s evidence in a claw-hammer murder in Oklahoma (he testified that he did, in fact, hit the victim with a claw hammer… but it wasn’t *the* fatal blow). DuMond was assiciated with other rapes (albeit, not adjudicated cases) and many of his previous victims wrote Huckabee objecting to the pardon.
Huckabee was up to his gills in the DuMond case, whereas Dukakis’ “sin” was he happened to be Governor when a previously-established policy happened to result in disastrous results.
Oh Parkay, just imagine. If you promoted everyone to become homosexual, you’d effectively end the need for abortion except in the event of health of the mother…not a single unplanned pregnancy ever!
On the DuMond case, the fact that a local sheriff had DuMond’s balls in a jar had something to do with Hukabee’s attitude, I believe. To redress a vigilante castration may have been reasonable. Hukabee vs. Edwards — please, please.
On the DuMond case, the fact that a local sheriff had DuMond’s balls in a jar had something to do with Hukabee’s attitude, I believe.Posted by: Door King | December 06, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Door King, could you please provide a link for that? I’m very curious about the details. Was the guy actually casterated, or are you speaking figuratively?
Acting Gov. Jim Guy Tucker Wednesday commuted the sentence of Wayne Dumond, a castrated Forrest City man imprisoned for the 1984 kidnapping rape of a 17- year-old distant cousin of Gov. Bill Clinton.
The decision will make Dumond eligible for parole in 1995, after serving 10 years, but his attorney said with good time he could be eligible for release by August.
Tucker reduced Dumond’s life-plus-20-years sentence to 39 1/2 years in a decree issued hours after Clinton resumed a presidential campaign interrupted for six days by laryngitis. Clinton’s office issued a statement saying Clinton agreed with Tucker’s decision.
In a letter to Dumond’s attorney, John Wesley Hall, Tucker said he found no error in the jury’s guilty verdict. But he said the castration of Dumond before the start of trial should mitigate his sentence.
In March 1985, four months after Dumond’s arrest, two men castrated him. He was convicted of rape and kidnapping in August 1985. The castration has not been solved.
”Regardless of who was responsible, this was a reprehensible action which no society can condone,” Tucker said in the letter to Hall. ”It seems clear that it was intended as an extrajudicial, vigilante punishment of Mr. Dumond for the crime with which he had been charged.”
Tucker said he and Clinton discussed the decision in the past few days, but Tucker refused to give details of the conversations.
There is more to the story than presented. The man should not have ever seen the light of day but by their own actions the Arkansans gave the ammunition for this to go forward. And yes they were on the sheriffs desk for days by all reports. If you do the research you will find the witnesses who saw them. That the crime was never ’solved’ was what helped Tucker and Huckabee take the action they did. According to this report Clinton was advised of the lessened sentence and concured.
For three years the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America held its ground. It resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people despite threats that if it did not do so, the city would evict the group from a municipal building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06scouts.html
What do you think? Should homosexuals be allowed to lead groups of young boys?
I just read this info:The mall shooter was illegally carrying a stolen weapon in a gun-free zone.
Legal concealed carry permit owners were not allowed to have weapons on the mall premises. We’ll never know if the outcome would have been different if legal gun owners had been allowed to carry their weapons in the mall.
David Atkins, I heard that earlier. It would seem that the head long rush to ban legally carried weapons may be a double-edged sword. All of the gun-free zone signs in the world don’t stop a derainged criminal from carrying a gun. They just stop people who might possibly have made a difference in yesterday’s carnage.
On the Nebraska Carry forum one of the members had a post detailing how he was close enough to watch the spent casings eject from the shooters weapon….
…but he was disarmed because the mall has a Dis-armed Victim Zone policy.
On the Nebraska Carry forum one of the members had a post detailing how he was close enough to watch the spent casings eject from the shooters weapon….
…but he was disarmed because the mall has a Dis-armed Victim Zone policy.
Posted by: Heckler_______
What a tragedy. And what mis-guided gun laws. Well-intentioned, perhaps, but mis-guided, none-the-less. Emotion-based laws that are not well thought out possibly lead, in this case, to additional deaths of innocent people.
It’s particularly stupid of you to misquote something when the source is so easily found… just a few posts over your misquote. For the most part, I don’t respond to you anymore because of your poor skills and brittle intellect. YOU TRUNCATED THE QUOTE IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT. If you have a point to make, come up with an original thought. Don’t misquote people because some button got pushed in your limited brain. The ENTIRE quote included the word “possibly,” which is exactly where you spliced your misrepresentation.
I wonder if Hillary will promise to pass Brady Bill II banning all handguns today, or if she will wait until after the election.
The timing is right for her today, but she may not want to expose herself too much before the vote.
She might just propose Mandatory Gun Registration, without mentioning her Gun Ban.
Mandatory health care is part of her plan too. Big Brother (Sister?) will be able to tell us what to do, thank God, cause we be too stupid to think on our own.
Hillary needs to get the guns banned first though. (Read Alinksy!)
Too bad the Security guards in that mall didn’t have guns. And too bad those who had concealed carry permits were banned from carrying their guns into that mall.
Took 6 minutes for the cops to get there. Fast, but not fast enough.
Just dial 911, who needs to be able to defend themselves?
From an eye witness at the mall shooting, who did not have his weapon because the mall bans them:
Re: Mall shooting at Westroads in Omaha——————————————————————–I just wanted to let everyone know I was in that store today at 1:35 pm, 3rd floor, by customer service and seen the gunman in action. Close enough to see the shells ejecting.
If anyone is interested, I can post my account of things here, as well as my opinion. I will assure everyone here, that had I had a gun, I had a clear shot for several seconds. I am not trying to make a political statement, but it is a fact.
The kid had a felony drug conviction, can’t own a weapon, period. Report is the weapon was stolen.
Would someone on an Internet forum lie about something like that? Possibly, but he is known by other forum members who seem to believe him. If he was lying it would come out in time; he claimed he was interviewed by the police, it would be in the record, so the lie would come out in time.
Sure he could be lying but your bigoted view of CCW holders leads you to EXPECT him to lie.
Once again, another mass shooting. And once again, in a mandated disarmed victim zone. How many of these do we have to see before we figure out it’s not a mere coincidence? At what point are we tired of watching citizens being gunned down with impunity?
So what do we do?
OK, let’s deal with what we KNOW. We know that no gun law would have prevented this person from doing what he did.
We KNOW that CC holders are not a threat to anyone, except perhaps those who would harm them or their loved ones. Crimes of violence committed by CC holders with their weapons are all but unknown, and it doesn’t take rocket science to know why.
We KNOW that properly trained and prepared persons are capable of acting appropriately, even under times of stress. Cops do it daily; our soldiers so it daily. Nearly anyone can, given training and practice.
(other than the poster on the Nebraska forum, and I have no evidence to disbelieve him, do you, JR? And by that rationale yo espouse, given the biases you wear on your sleeves, why should be believe you?)
Yea, I know - it was an off-duty cop, not a civilian. A distinction without a difference. If you think there’s something magical in officers that mere mortals are incapable of understanding or doing, that speaks to your limitations, not mine.
In short, while there are certainly no guarantees, don’t you think trained individuals capable of defending themselves and perhaps others are a better option that watching shooters like this one gun down multiple victims with impunity? How many have to die to satisfy the mindless emotional response of some that “guns=bad?”
In my opinion, given those choices, it’s no choice at all.
What do you think? Should homosexuals be allowed to lead groups of young boys?
Posted by: Solomon
I’ll jump. Regardless of the sexual orientation, all leaders of small children need to be supervised, evaluated, or investigated - particularly if they lead alone. With that said, parents need to be involved with their children in their activities. You don’t just drop them off and say, “Pick you up in two hours.” You come in to the house, meet the scout leader, master, and ask him/her their principles or teaching objectives. “So what are you going to teach my kid?” Is a great opener without sounding like an inquisition. Parents, and big brothers/sisters should volunteer to HELP or assist the scout leader. (This could be any situation, even school). Most of my years afiliated with scouts, the leaders LOVED having helpers.In fact, they cannot do it by themselves many times.
As a homosexual, you should expect and be happy to answer parents concerns and invite them to participate in the meetings.
But as an institution, any private organization has a right to exclude anyone from their membership. Pretty simple. Freedom. But if that organization desires to use public property - then they have to play the game. If the laws of governmental/public bodies prohibit discrimation (or buck teeth), the organization either conforms to use the public property - or go somewhere else to meet. Even if it’s been 80 years.
J R you are stirring the pot for the pleasure of it. You are on a fishing expedition, and have had a few bites. You’ve voiced your opinion, and now are prepared to argue all day on it. Enjoy!
Here’s a clue. The guy with the rifle walking around and shooting the people without guns is the bad guy. It’s really pretty simple.
Running can be a good thing. If I were there with one of my children and had a clear escape route I’d be making tracks. But if I were cornered with no escape route I’d like to have an option besides throwing shoes or perfume bottles as a defense.
I’ll try to do this in parts, I guess . . . Part I.
JR
The idea of you as the poster without an agenda is a joke of the highest order! Moreover, generally, your posts simply display your ignorance on the subject of firearms in general and the trained proper use of same.
I’ll agree in one respect,, however: if one can retreat, and do so without putting oneself or others in additional jeopardy, it’s always a wise choice.
But the idea that trained citizens capable of defending themselves turn the situation into a combat zone is worse is pure fantasy - worse, it’s knowing BS. It assumes that CC holders would be out there willy-nilly firing off dozens of rounds, essentially at random. CC is now legal in 48 states, in one form or another; I challenge you to find instances of a CC holder reacting as you imagine. You’ll find few, if any. I’ll also invite you to join me at an IDPA event, JR; what you’ll learn is that your imagination could not be further from the truth.
I suspect you’ll decline, however. And I suspect you do so because truth isn’t what you’re in the least interested in.
Let’s put it this way: when the cops arrive, what do they bring with them to deal with the situation? GUNS!!!
If a cop had been present in the moment, and the opportunity to take out the assailant without putting others in additional risk had presented itself, should he have done so? Even you would agree - of course.
It appears this poster in Nebraska would have had that opportunity - a clear shot - had he had his weapon. It was denied him by a misguided, even if well-meaning, policy. He - not a bit surprisingly, given that he was a CC holder - was obeying the law. And it may - note may - have cost additional lives for him to do so.
The question still stands: how many more times do we watch our citizens gunned down with impunity? Neither of us want that, of course. We know what we are doing now isn’t working; the gun free zone is, in effect, a free fire zone for those who would do harm. We know more laws banning guns don’t work; this gun was apparantly illegally possessed. Moreover, there is of course a constitutional bar to simply banning guns.
So give me a policy option, JR. You’ve impuned the character and motives of those who have the audacity to disagree with you, can you offer an viable alternative? It’s not a trick question, and there’s no secret catch. Can you suggest a policy change which carries a significant likelihood of success in at least reducing the likelihood of more mass shootings like this one?
Subject: Dear Santa
Dear Santa,
I wud like a kool toy space ranjur fer Xmas. Iv ben a gud boy all yeer. yer Frend, BiLLy
Dear Billy,
Nice spelling. You’re on your way to a career in lawn care.
How about I send you a friggin’ book so you can learn to read and write?
I’m giving your older brother the space ranger. At least HE can spell!
Santa
__________________________________Dear Santa,
I have been a good girl all year, and the only thing I ask for is peace and joy in the world for everybody! Love, Sarah
Dear Sarah,
Your parents smoked pot when they had you, didn’t they?
Santa
__________________________________Dear Santa,
I don’t know if you can do this, but for Christmas, I’d like for my mommy and daddy to get back together. Please see what you can do. Love, Teddy
Dear Teddy,
Look, your dad’s banging the babysitter like a screen door in a hurricane. Do you think he’s gonna give that up to come back to your frigid mom, who rides his ass constantly? It’s time to give up that dream. Let me get you some nice Legos instead.
Santa
__________________________________Dear Santa,
I want a new bike, a Playstation, a train, some G.I. Joes, a dog, a drum set, a pony and a tuba.
Love, Francis
Dear Francis,
Who names their kid “Francis” nowadays? I bet you’re gay; I’ll set you up with a Barbie.
Santa
I wonder if the CC poster in Omaha would have made any difference at all, had he had his weapon with him. The rationale for the above is the action of the shooter in apparently firing on and killing a man on the escalator one floor below who was calling 911 on a cell phone. Thus, if the individual who posted was, indeed, on the third floor, etc., and had gone for his firearm, may we assume the shooter would not have observed this and reacted by directing fire his way?
GMC, you are right by saying “may”, and with that I agree; he “may” have been able to make a difference. And, implicit within that is that he may not have been able to make a difference. We’ll never know.
We’ll also never know whether any other policy would have prevented the shooter from bringing the apparently stolen AK 47 (per cnn.com the rifle is described as an AK 47) into the Von Maur store. There are some who, in good faith, argue that it would. Others argue it would not. I don’t have an answer, but I speculate that in this particular case there would not have been a different outcome.
And, GMC, I’ve no policy response that makes (to me) any more sense than that which exists now, including the suggestion inherent in your Part II that the current policy be changed to allow CC permit holders to carry their weapons in the mall. I’m not one that believes that CC permit holders will have gunfights in the halls, etc., and I don’t believe that allowing CC permit holders to lawfully carry in the mall would have deterred the unfortunate event of yesterday in Omaha.
“A mortgage happens to be a contract between a borrower and a lender. Do we really want to be in a position where the government changes the playing field and makes legislative changes to modify those contracts? Would it even be legal to do so?”
The legality does not matter, only that which is the most politically expedient. Which candidate is going to have the guts to make borrowers honor their agreed upon contract?
Hillary has come up gutless, next?
furthermore…
“It is unfortunate that when something bad happens in the economic world, many lawmakers react by forgetting or ignoring everything they learned in junior-high economics class…they can end up hurting the very people they think they are helping.”
rfl, I agree it will come back and bite everybody later down the road, But I also agree the lenders were looking for a way out, they get nothing out of a empty house or paying the cost involved with keeping it up and getting it ready to sell. these are cost they can not absorb..
>suggest a policy change which carries a significant likelihood of success in at least reducing the likelihood of more mass shootings like this one?
It is the weapon’s fault when these tragic crimes happen. The gun industry is the blame.
You want a policy change?
Stop paying NRA dues! How’s that? Will you follow that advice?
Everybody stop paying NRA dues is the best policy change start.
It’s self compliance policy who will do it? The NRA overwhelming supports selling war weapons retail.
Policy change demands you have to be against them.
Counter insurgency is the reason to have mass killing weapons for war in a home. Someone “bent” thinks confiscation might happen or they will someday take up arms against Feds and police.
That isn’t a weapon for home protection, bullets will shred drywall and go through doors. Shooting intruder in a home with that is liable to kill neighbors next door.
How about more real and substantive policy change.
Eradication of those weapons being sold retail. Collectors banned from trading them. Their ammunition not sold either.
That’s real, when America finally says some guns aren’t necessary, their too dangerous in the wrong hands. Weapons for war shouldn’t be sold retail or traded.
A loser gets guns and shoots up a crowd of people. It doesn’t take any training. A lazy punk just aims and pulls the trigger fast as he can.
So there it is, a slob, idiot, piece of crap personality that hates has access to weapons for war sold retail. Steals it from a paranoid collector family member in this case.
Let me say this, to make sure I’m clear. I do not want the state to force private property owners to permit CC; I think it should be the storekeeper’s choice. What private property owners do with their property, and what they permit or bar, is up to them. Misguided or not, it is their property to govern as they choose. It is likewise my choice whether or not to go there.
Where it is a gov’t facility, however, absent a very few locations (jails, perhaps secured courthouses), I would vote to end the limitation on carry. Ending the limitation carries no additional risk, and carries at least the possibility of ready defense should it be necessary. I hope, of course, it’s never necessary, but unfortunately history tells us that it indeed may be.
I don’t necessarily think CC would have deterred it either, VT, but it seems that time and time again these tragedies happen in the disarmed victim zones. Maybe that is mere coincidence, but given that most places (if the experience so far in Kansas is typical) permit carry, I’m skeptical. We cannot know, of course, but I’m afraid that for someone like this, bent on inflicing carnage, that innocuous sign on the door indicates he has a better than average chance of being unopposed as he opens fire.
The best we could probably hope for is that an armed, trained individual was in a place where he could have put an end to the shooter’s rampage. Unfortunately, misguided policies like the one at this mall end even that possibility.
I oppose conceal carry. My take is more guns is more problems.
And if you look? I did not start this.
It was BOLDY suggested that the presence of one or more concealed carriers would have saved lives in this instance. My original post only pointed out the dishonest simplicity of the suggestion.
And let us be clear. YOU have an agenda of your own. You have said you will not frequent a business that does not allow you to carry your gun.
It’s ok. You are HELPING me give this arguement two sides.
Yup the cops have guns. That’s their job.
Now if they get to that mall yesterday, how do they tell the “bad guy”? Seems like anyone with a gun visible is going to complicate the assessment of the situation, no? Maybe get killed themselves?
I DO mostly see the right idea here. Run that is.
Think about those who would not run. Some yahoo hears the shots. He can help. He heads that way. Well the people running toward him don’t know he’s part of the solution! He’s just another person with a gun. Now where do they run?
Does the mall assume additional liability if say, one of the victims was a concealed carry permit holder, but complied with the store policy banning guns?
In other words, if not for the store policy, I may have been able to defend myself and save my life?
In almost all of these cases, the shooter is suicidal. That was the case here.
A crazed person bent on death for themselves and others is not much concerned whether anyone else might be armed or not. They don’t shoot themselves out of boredom.
Someday one of these awful things will happen at a gun show. Then the arguement that more guns would stop it will be gone.
I don’t attempt to hide my position. You did, claiming that, in your words, “I seem to be the only poster WITHOUT an agenda.” (-JR at 1:08)
Further, JR, you misstate your opponent’s position. It was stated, on a Nebraska forum by a person who was there, that had he had his legal CC weapon, he could have ended this massacre.
I don’t know if that is the case, of course. And the posters here have written only that a CC holder MAY have been able to prevent more carnage. We cannot know for sure, of course.
The only thing we know for sure is that current policy continues to fail. Permitting CC holders in places like this mall carries no additional risk of harm, and MAY prevent, or at least lessen, tragedies such as this one.
It pains me to say this, but I’m not sure I can come to another conclusion. Could it be that you oppose common sense changes in the law because you believe that tragedies like this one further your agenda?
GMC, for me your clarification was not needed. In rereading my post, I see where you might have thought it was, and all I can say is that I didn’t phrase that as well as I might.
I understand your arguments concerning the policy you feel is misguided. They are rational and well made. I will say that the existence of signage indicating the mall as a place where firearms were not allowed did not, IMHO, make any difference to the shooter here. Rather, the size of the mall, the large store and the potential of making a big splash on the way out, as it were, were to my mind the operative factors. Whether concealed weapons were permitted was not a factor, again IMO.
Yes, the possibility you hypothecate was denied due to the policy; no doubt. To me, that is a decision to be made by the property owner, and I know we both agree there. While I would hope this would not occur, I would support the right of the mall owner (in this case) to have metal detectors and guards at the entrances thereto. Although I and many others likely would have a negative reaction to that decision, if there was a place within the mall which was the only place a certain desired good might be obtained (no online shopping, no catalog sales), I’d grudgingly put up with it to get that which I want.
I’m not yet sure where I stand on opening up governmental facilities other than those you present to lawful concealed carry. I tend to lean towards not allowing it in K-12 schools, as again I think that someone determined to “go out with a bang” (pardon the unfortunate pun) would not be deterred from invading such a school by that. Again, your presented possibility exists; I’m just not there, yet.
The oldest and best form of self defense is to get the hell outta the way of the danger. I have suggested how conceal carry might interfere with that. At least for the majority who are not armed.
That’s a great point GMC. Not only do you never hear of shootings at gun shows, but you don’t hear about shooting deaths at shooting ranges either.
I feel safer at the gun range, then I do walking down the streets of many cities in the US.
And I have no doubt that some Brady & Co gun-banners are hoping for a few big shooting incidents to launch their next gun ban campaign.
Are they devious enough to propose such restrictive legislation incrementally, 1)in order to make the changes small enough to not be noticed, and 2)in order to make it easier for criminals to commit more gun crimes?
Then waiting for enough gun murderes to finally push for an all out gun ban?
The word you left out of your last post is “yet” GMC.
This is not to hope for a shooting at a gun show to prove my point. I simply mean that venue has little to do with someone bent on dying and taking as many people with him as possible.
Well…except for that church thing. Those people couldn’t run I guess. But having someone armed would be at odds with their faith.
“Does the mall assume additional liability if say, one of the victims was a concealed carry permit holder, but complied with the store policy banning guns?”
Max, I probably should leave that one for the civil expert here. But, and VT, feel free to correct me, it seems that it’s pretty tenuous and very difficult to prove that “but for” a victim’s complying with the ban, he would have not been harmed. There is probably no way to know whether that is the case. That would depend entirely on the facts, of course. At some point, such a suit may come.
What if I frame it this way: In this case, the Nebraska poster says he had a clear shot, had he been carrying his weapon. He was barred from doing so. Some of the victims would have been saved had he had his weapon and taken that shot.
Assume that such a scenario could be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Do the families of the victims, especially some of the last victims shot, have a viable cause of action against the mall: “but for” the policy, this man could have saved my loved-one’s life, and was prevented from doing so by the policy?
Perhaps this circumstances is grounds for such a case?
JR, no question, the 1st option is to flee if at all possible.
IF fleeing is NOT an option, then what?
Emotional? You bet! When it comes to protecting my life, my wife, and/or my kids, ya, that IS emotional for sure.
And Vaughn, I just gotta give you a hard time on this one, really respect your posts, but I had to laugh when you stated the obvious so eloquently here:
“I will say that the existence of signage indicating the mall as a place where firearms were not allowed did not, IMHO, make any difference to the shooter here.”
Remember that Illinois gun store under suspicion selling more guns to criminals. You wanted an AR-15 from him to give support. Half jokingly but intentional.
When a piece of crap uses those kinds of weapons in public, why again do you want one?
You celebrate the Right those kinds of guns being sold and traded.
Until someone like you says that’s enough, America doesn’t need weapons of war sold retail, these mass killings with toys you like will continue.
Policy change demands you make a difference.
It’s not society supposed to change, allowing guns in gun free zones.
Max, as to the civil liability about which you ask. My answer is no, there would not be any additional civil liability imposed. Putting on my plaintiff’s lawyer hat, I could more easily see where civil liability might be imposed upon the mall owner if concealed carry permit holders were permitted to bring their firearms into the mall, and a bystander was injured or killed as the result of a shot fired by that person trying to take out the gunman. A big stretch to get there, I freely admit, but not as big a stretch as what you were asking about.
Speaking of civil liability in general, I wonder (and no, I’m not proposing this as what should be done) if weapons owners should be held strictly liable for damages resulting from use of a weapon owned by them, under the tort theory applied at common law to maintaining a dangerous instrumentality, e.g., the landowner who dams a river which subsequently breaches, flooding his neighbors. There would need to be a shield in the case of a weapon stolen from a lawful owner (not a convicted felon, not a minor, etc.), so long as the owner reports the theft within a certain period of time after the theft was discovered, say 24 hours. I’ve some issues with the above (I know GMC can discern the source of these issues), but in general, what do the rest of you think?
Westroads Mall,There is a Dick’s sporting goods at the mall. Weapons were available.Everybody is second guessing what they would have done. It”s easy to be Rambo on a blog.
Annie I was in this paticular VonMaurs 3 weeks ago. It is at one end of the mall and isolated from the rest of the stores. It would have all been over by the time anyone ran to Dicks and ran back.
Responding a bit more to Max, and adopting GMC’s analysis a bit, the issue would then be whether the potential reduction of the number of victims was a matter of speculation; in other words, while we might speculate that to be the case, is there any admissible evidence that could show the same? It’s my opinion that at this point, it’s all speculative, which removes liability from the mall.
Interestingly, I think we have all accepted the Nebraska poster’s post as being a fair representation of his relative position to the shooter, etc. Maybe it’s not? I’m willing to assume his post as factual, for sake of discussion; again, I wasn’t present, so I don’t know if it is factual.
That’s OK, Max, have your fun; no problem there, as I was merely expressing my opinion, which is worth as much as I charged for it. :-)
Isn’t the shooter already held liable under both criminal and civil law Vaughn?
Not giving up yet on the other issue - increased liability on the part of the mall for not allowing a concealed carry permit holder to carry.
Say that Rubber Boots were not allowed to be worn into a mall, and thus, I had to take off my rubber boots and leave them in my car before entering the mall. And say during a snowfall I enter that mall without my rubber boots, and I slip and fall break my hip, I’m in a hospital for a month, and disabled for a year.
Does the mall have increased liability because 1)the sidewalk had snow on it, and 2)I was not allowed to wear my rubber boots that MAY have prevented my fall?
My example may seem ridiculous to some, but to me, it’s ridiculous that concealed carry permit holders would be banned from carrying their firearms in a shopping mall.
“It was BOLDY suggested that the presence of one or more concealed carriers would have saved lives in this instance.
Posted by: J R”
JR -
Who suggested that? After reading back through all the posts I couldn’t find anyone that said that. I see where you misstated a post by David A., and then he corrected you. But know one suggested as a certainty that a person with a CC gun definitely would have made a difference. Where did you get that info?
I don;t really know if their had been a few cc types there, if it would have made a difference. Perhaps. Perhaps even one less death? So does the “risk” of allowing cc in places like the mall, outweigh the “risk” of this happening again? Perhaps those of you opposed could rationalize that with the loved ones of the last one killed. Actually, though I do not know of ANY incident where some cc type started killing people, or killed someone else while trying to stop a bad guy, it still makes me a little nervous to allow cc in such places. However, for me, the nervousness about the unkown and unlawful cc types makes me more thoughtful. So for those of you who discount the positive of cc, I understand. I would also wonder your reaction to this proposal. Provide for and Pay for armed law enforcement in any gathering, or place of gathering, over a certain amount of people. Give them the authjority to cut down, without question, anyone pulling a firearm. For a mall the size of town east. Four cops, continually on duty. Two on the upper level, two on the lower level. And if cost is a concern, how many times have I heard ‘It’s worth it if it saves just one life”? Takers? Comments?
Max, putting the rules regarding premises liability aside for a moment, your hypothetical has a flaw IMO; nothing requires you to remove your rubber boots in the car; merely that you not wear the boots into the mall, which means you might wear them to the door, and then remove them; sure, what to do with the boots? An enterprising person/entity would likely have lockers to rent in which the same could be stored so you wouldn’t have to carry them, or you could just carry them around with you in the mall. Sorry, Max, still can’t get there.
By having unarmed security guards, was the Mall negligent in maintaining adequate security, especially since the mall prohibited concealed carry permit holders from carrying a firearm to defend themselves?
By descreasing the ability of individuals to defend themselves, did the Mall assume increased liability for protecting its customers? Was there an implied contract for protection, given the prohibition of self-protection?
(Not a lawyer, but I’ve watched one on TV, and watched several in divorce court. Not a pretty picture.)
So does the “risk” of allowing cc in places like the mall, outweigh the “risk” of this happening again?
Posted by: littlejohn
LJ, What do you perceive the risks being of CC permit holders having guns in a mall? If you could articulate that, perhaps the concerns could be addressed. Not trying to preempt your thoughts, but it seems that those who are trained and licensed with CC guns are less a threat than those who are not.
“It would have all been over by the time anyone ran to Dicks and ran back.”
grm,You don’t know that. Even if cc was legal in the mall what’s the odds of a cc guy or gal being at that place at that time. What if they froze like a rabbit crossing the road. Banks have armed security they get robbed.There is no solution. I’m not against guns I have an arsenal myself. CC just don’t think it’s going to make that much of a difference.
Max, the question becomes (to us legal types) whether it was reasonably foreseeable that an armed, mentally unstable teenager would steal a weapon, and then bring it to the mall to shoot as many folks as he could before committing suicide. If such is reasonably foreseeable, then is having unarmed security guards present or banning concealed carry from the premises in any way the proximate cause of the injuries and deaths resulting from the foreseeable actions. It’s been a LONG time since I took Torts I and II, but I think the issue you are attempting to raise fails on foreseeability (if that’s even a word), and if for some reason, it passes that test, then proximate cause relationship must be satisfied.
Given the few facts that have been determined, the proximate cause of the injuries/deaths was the action of the shooter. Now, Justice Cardozo might have seen it differently (see the Palsgraf case), but I still can’t get there from here, so to speak.
I tend to agree with your analysis, and like you, I’m accepting the Nebraska poster to be truthful; again, I have no reason to believe he wasn’t. Let me paint a specific scenario, and presume, arguendo, that same can be proven by by a preponderance of the evidence (the usual civil standard).
In a mall, Scumbucket (S) draws weapon, fires 2 shots, pauses as weapon stovepipes. Our Nebraska CC holder, Couragous Charlie (CC) hears shots, ducks, and when the shooting pauses, looks up from behind a counter. Sees S holding rifle and attempting to clear the jam. CC is 10-15 feet away and unnoticed by S, and CC is a good shot; CC is trained and can demonstrate consistant accuracy, even under stress at that distance, but is without his weapon due to policy. After a few more seconds, S clears his rifle, and re-opens fire, killing Victor (v).
Does V have a recoverable claim against mall owner? Does CC have a claim, as he is in great distress when persons die and he could have prevented same? Suppose CC has his weapon, and fires, killing S. Any liability, civil or criminal? Suppose CC fires, killing S, but one round misses and kills Bystander (B)? Does B have a cause of action, and against who? Discuss.
Just an observation
Annie about the likelyhood that anyone could have gotten there and back.
Remembering back to the only shooting I remember at a Wichita mall, Towne East - it happened on a Christmas Eve late afternoon. If it had happened next to me I would have first been concerned with covering those with me and second with drawing a gun.
No good solution but I do think that a well trained population with those who feel comfortable with CC doing so would make a difference in several cases.
The restaurant in Texas - I think it was Killeen - several diners were gunned down and one of the survivers who lost her parents had a revolver in her car but wasn’t allowed to bring it in. She was in law enforcement. It was right after this that Texas became CC.
Nightmares are present, GMC. I presume I have the three hours traditionally allotted (assuming this is the only question on the final) to write my answer. :-)
There is in my mind, a certain risk factor in allowing individuals to conceal carry in places like malls. There is always the possibility of a cc having a “mental moment”, or a “poor judgement moment” or in trying to take down a perp, taking down someone else. It has not happened to my knowledge, there are always risk factors. That risk must be weighed against the risk of multiple individuals being shot by a perp. Whenever it comes to risks that can be identified, and they have huge consequences, they should be thought out thoroughly, no?
BTW, to the poster who pointed out the liability of the shooter supra, I agree; I was presenting a case for imposing strict liability upon the owner of the weapon involved who may not be the shooter.
Thanks for the clarification Vaughn. I wasn’t considering the liability of the owner of the gun, supposedly the step-Dad of the shooter according to the news reports I’ve read. And the shooter stole the gun from the step-Dad.
I’m sure state laws very, but beyond keeping the gun in your home and locking the doors on your home, what does the law require you to do to secure your property from theft? Or does the law require you to secure your property from theft?
In my boots example above (which you shot down - crashed and burned now!) you said I could wear my boots in the parking lot and leave them outside the store, where they would be subject to theft!
About those boots:
I didn’t actually say if I fell inside or outside the mall.
“And say during a snowfall I enter that mall without my rubber boots, and I slip and fall break my hip”.
If I fell just inside the doorway on a very wet, slippery floor (wet from all that melted snow people are tracking inside), then would that make any difference in your opinion?
It’s gettin so deep here, I’m gonna have to put my rubber boots on now!
While there may be indeed some theoretical “risk factor” in permitting CC holders to carry in public places like malls, the experience of CC in the 40+ states which permit it over the last 20 years or so indicates that there is, for all intents and purposes, NO real additional risk. Our experience has been that licensed legal CC holders are simply not a risk to commit offenses with their carry weapons. It’s not hard to figure out why, with just a moment’s thought.
So I think the additional risk to permitting CC holders to carry in your equasion is negligable, at most.
On the other hand, it demonstrates no additional benefits either.
Posted by: CapnAmerica
___________
On the contrary, Capn, The off-duty officer who had a gun at the mall shooting last Spring clearly mitigated the carnage that would have otherwise occurred.
Max, that’s why I said “putting the rules regarding premises liability aside for the moment” above. In the days of contributory negligence, the fact that there was water from melted snow on the floor would be sufficient to put you on notice that the floor was wet, and potentially slippery, and thus you would need to exercise caution in proceeding to walk on the floor; any “slip and fall” at that point could presumably be at least partially the result of your negligence, and bar you from recovery. Under comparative fault, as it exists in Kansas, the question for the jury would be to assess the fault, if any, of each party as the same would be deemed to contribute to the accident. Thus, the jury might decide the mall was 55% at fault by not keeping the floor mopped, and you were 45% at fault in continuing to walk knowing the floor was wet, and the amount of your recovery would be adjusted to reflect this. Or, it might decide that each party was 50% at fault, which means you don’t recover; or, that you were greater than 50% at fault (same result).
That’s why in Torts we discussed the case of a slip and fall in a grocery store, with a lettuce leaf being the cause; if the leaf was brown, that indicated a breach of duty on the part of the store to keep the premises “safe” to a business invitee, the brown leaf indicating it had been there long enough for the store, by and through its employees, to know about it and not doing something to remedy the situation; if it was green, then the leaf had recently fallen on the floor, and the store hadn’t had enough time to remedy the matter, and also if it was green, the customer had a better chance of seeing and avoiding it, which would presumably bar the customer from recovery.
“…for all intents and purposes, NO real additional risk.” (GMC70)
Ummmm you want to look those families of the 8 people killed in Omaha yesterday, square in the face and try to tell THEM that??
Posted by: Chas. | December 06, 2007 at 04:47 PM
—–Tell the victims that?
Absolutely. No CC holder took those lives. In fact, if a CC holder had been there, armed, he may (note MAY) have been able to save some lives.
I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you misunderstood my post. Otherwise, I’d have to conclude you are accusing CC holders of killing those poor folks. Surely you don’t mean that, do you?
Democrats who claim to be pro-life like PA Sen. Bob Casey cannot be trusted. Casey is actually a baby-hating liar and spineless cheat. After defeating pro-life Republican Sen. Santorum by claiming to be pro-life, Casey proceeded to promote abortions by voting in favor of taxpayer funding for abortions, voting against the Mexico City policy, and voting against the Vitter Amendment, intended to stop Title X taxpayer funding for abortions.
The baby-hating Democrat Party can twist the arms of so-called pro-life Democrats enough to force a pro-abortion vote any time they want. And they will.- - -
Since June 2006, when the HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, there have been 28 reported cases in which pregnant women miscarried after receiving the vaccine. The series of expensive injections is routinely, and with considerable encouragement from media and other groups influenced by Merck & Co.’s high drug profits, administered to teenage girls, some of whom do not know they are pregnant. Nonetheless, the FDA refuses any further investigation into the dangerous drug’s safety, insisting that some young mothers will miscarry anyway, and disregarding 8 reported deaths and 3461 adverse reactions reported.See news page
Omaha’s Westroads Mall posts signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property, the same as Trolley Square Mall in Utah, where another multiple shooting occurred in February.Signs don’t stop shooting spree killers. Guns do.The SKS semi-automatic rifle is not defined as an assault rifle. Differing news reports are referring to the Omaha shooter’s weapon, likely stolen from his stepfather, as an SKS rifle or an AK-47 rifle or an old Russian military rifle. Is this the most accuracy the news media is capable of?The Russian SKS and the AK-47 are not the same. The AK-47 was a replacement for the SKS rifle. The shooter, Robert Hawkins, 19, with a record as a depressed junkie and boozer, was able to fire a large number of shots and kill 8 people in a matter of a few minutes, likely using semi-automatic fire, one shot per trigger pull, by using two 30-round magazines taped together for rapid reloading.The AK-47 automatic rifle is an assault rifle. The SKS semi-automatic carbine rifle is not.The real weapon here was created by people who let a troubled young man destroy his life with illegal booze and drugs, and failed to insist on effective treatment for his depression.
Let’s see a guy with a pistol, would be expected to go up against a guy with an assault rifle. Pretty slim odds the pistol packer would make a good shot especially with all the adrenalin flowing.
Just on the news: AMT relief had been passed by the House; however the Republic filibuster has blocked it in the Senate. Republics don’t want this tax relief unless ti is done 100% on the credit card.
Let’s see a guy with a pistol, would be expected to go up against a guy with an assault rifle. Pretty slim odds the pistol packer would make a good shot especially with all the adrenalin flowing.
Posted by: The Phantom | December 06, 2007 at 05:02 PM
Depends on how the pistol packing person was trained.
If the CC person took an urban combat course, he/she would know how to analyze, approach and aim.
The 3 “A’s”
Once you aim, there can be no guess work, it’s a matter of practice and with enough practice one takes aim at the targeted mass, squeezes off rounds with controlled accuracy and does micro adjustments to recoil just as they have trained.
I thought the study by Lott and Mustard proved that CC laws actually caused crime rates to decrease..then why has Wichita’s murder rate shot up since CC was legalized?Maybe if guns weren’t so available, so many crazy people wouldn’t have access to them.The media is partly to blame for the carnage at the mall and in every other incident like it. They give so much attention to the perpetrators…the kids that shot up the school in Columbine even had a movie made about their actions…what more incentive does a sick person need to try and become infamous before they take themselves out? And people eat this stuff up…which is all the media needs to make antiheros out of those who would perpetrate a crime like this.
If face to face, I agree. That’s why, if I’m that pistol holder, I pick my spots very carefully; I’m clearly outgunned. Head on? No way. I’d presume that a CC holder would take his shot, if he could, from a direction where the shooter was not aware of him, and when was distracted.
Duh.
A CC holder expects to be better able to defend himself, but he’s not a fool.
Kansas..pretty sick that we’ve come to a point in our society that one can’t even go shopping and feel safe without carrying a gun.I get the feeling that all you hard core gun lovers would drool at the thought of getting to participate in gun play on the streets.
Mary, I can only speculate about the increase in Wichita’s murder rates, but I suspect it has little to nothing to do with the CC legislation, that is, while there might appear to be some correlation, there is nothing which suggests causation to me.
I don’t watch much TV GMC…but enough Americans do to make it worthwhile for the media to sensationalize these tragedys every chance they get.There is a reason why Jerry Springer has been #1 for years. People just love watching train wrecks.
The media is partly to blame for the carnage at the mall and in every other incident like it. They give so much attention to the perpetrators…
And people eat this stuff up…which is all the media needs to make antiheros out of those who would perpetrate a crime like this.
Posted by: Mary Caruso
_________
If the Mass Media could be completely shut down, it would make no difference in the cult publicity that deranged people now achieve through the internet. They seek some sort of meaning in life and perceive that fame–or more accurately, infamy–will provide it. While television may once have fed the beast, we are light years beyond that at this point.
CC and Omaha - I just don’t know. Would a good guy have gotten a shot and taken the guy out - thus saving lives? Or would there have been a crossfire costing more lives?
Oh Parkay, did you really think you’d get away with lying yet again? Title x provides family planning counseling and birth CONTROL, the funding for abortion comes ONLY in the event of rape or life of the mother. I know you want to see women die, but fortunately most people are ok with this.
As far as Gardisil, here’s the thing. ALL meds, in the first ten years of release onto the market, have the potential to have side effects that come out unknown prior. Yes, about 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. However, if there is truly a higher incident of miscarriage after Gardisil, then they need to stick a pregnancy category x on it. But remember, you can get the same effects from any other drug released onto the market. I know you hate preventing STD’s, as those skanky women deserve them, but you have to tell the whole truth.
Chas: IS THERE a point in there with Mrage? What there is, is a stream of consciousness sort of “feelings.”
HOWEVER: This once, and only this once, just to make you happy, here goes (but you owe me!):
1) The one thing we know is that bans never work. The only people that obey bans are those who abide by the law anyway; those who will commit crimes with firearms will likewise ignore the firearms laws.
Clinton pushed through the “scary black rifle ban.” It turns out, however, that Clinton became the best saleman of “assault rifles” ever. The value of the rifles exploded upward, and manufacturers modified their products to get around the rather silly restrictions on the ban, changing appearance, but not effecting function at all. End result: MORE “assault rifles,” not less.
And what do you do with the millions of non-compliant weapons currently held by 80-100 million americans? Simply declare them all to be criminals?
Bans are doomed to fail.
2) Distinctions between “weapons of war” and other firearms are meaningless. For example, under the assault weapon ban, an AR-15 was banned, a Mini-14 was not. Why? Tell me the distinction between the two.
Moreover, how do we distinguish between the “weapons of war” and other firearms. A 1911 is a “weapon of war,” as it was designed as a military sidearm, and so served until the 1980s (when the military adopted that piece of crap 9mm Baretta). Nearly all modern hunting rifles are direct descendants of a 98 Mauser, a “weapon of war.” Would you ban those? And as noted above, the AR is a “weapon of war,” the Mini-14 is not, yet you would ban one and not the other. But they are, in function, identical.
Most modern firearms were, at one point in their development, military weapons. No, that’s a smokescreen.
Those who want to ban “weapons of war” use that as a subterfuge to ban, period. I do not trust the motives of those who blame inanimate objects for the acts of criminal individuals.
3) Paranoid of the gov’t?! There is no one more paranoid of the govt than the leftists here, yet many seem to want to ban firearms. Why is that? More important, why is being “paranoid” of the gov’t a bad thing? Frankly, a little healthy paranoia, as long as it is not debilitating, is a very healthy thing. Give human history, what makes gov’ts trustworthy? Gov’ts, historically, are the greatest killers of all.
4) As important as personal defense is, that is not primarily the reason for the 2nd am. The founders understood that gov’t itself was the greatest threat to liberty, and that ultimately, the only real check on the state is an armed populace. It’s not for nothing that tyrants disarm their populations. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed one, a subject. More importantly, my right to life, and the tools to defend it, do not come to me from the gov’t; the predate the US and are inherent and inalienable. The 2nd Am only affirms what human history tells us: Arms are the tools of free men. And we’ll stay that way.
Chas, Mrage, I’ve been through all this before, and you know that. You just want to pretend that somehow I’ve “shyed away” from this debate. You know full well that’s not the case, but again, as Outlander has pointed out, half-truth is stock in trade with the left.
Satisfied?
BTW - Mrage, what I have just written are called “paragraphs.” Read it, learn it, love it.
Well what you have ALSO done is to be completely and totally dishonest there GMC.
You’ve an agenda here. You’d like to use instances like this tragedy to justify you carrying a pistol everywhere all the time.
If you take offense? Well I guess it is on you. But honestly? Are you REALLY that afraid? Or does it “pump ya up” walking around with a gun?
There may be deeper issues at play if so.
See? I’ve lived 40 + years. I can honestly say there is not one single time that I wished I had a gun WITH me.
Oh and not to indict anyone posting here. But I have seen those who now have a conceal carry permit BRAG about flaunting the law as to their guns. So the “all CC people are responsible” doesn’t wash for me.
I found a couple of national writers with similar styles as mine. The Eagle has printed each of my Letters to Editor without much change. I’ve had 10, I think.
If the gun lobby actually helped the Government, some bans might work.
You challenge why some guns are banned and similar aren’t. The NRA should point those oddities out.
We care if dangerous tires are manufactured. Why can’t we care dangerous guns are manufactured and sold retail?
It’s a consumer safety issue, must come with a warning label. Must be socially look down upon.
We can ban smoking and you want guns legal in more places. You want the AR-15, M-16, AK-47 and SKS rifle sold.
Why do they have to be sold because you believe government paranoia?
Why gun NUTS, that’s the best explanation, arm themselves against the FEDS! People threatening to shoot if police show up!
I can’t agree with that. I know the Fed attacks some people. But puts hands up and hire a lawyer before thinking shooting the Feds is reasonable!
We can buy hunting rifles that can shoot 200 yards with a scope. We can alter shotguns, pistol stock and sawed off. We can buy pistols. We could defend our home with reasonable guns.
Defending a home with weapons for wars are wrong. Defending against the government someday is the wrong thought.
Like I said, not until people like you see some bans could work, we’re going to continue watching mass killings happen.
The tragic crime in Omaha isn’t about CC making a difference. Its only about the gun and general public shouldn’t have it.
The paranoid of the gov, shouldn’t be armed to shoot them someday!
162 Comments
Holiday shoppers scattered in terror Wednesday as a young gunman sprayed a shopping mall with gunfire, killing eight people and wounding five others before he fatally shot himself.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mall6dec06,1,6268798.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
What a terrible thing to have happen coming into the holidays. My condolences to the families of the victims.
There are some really crazy people out there.
Not as drastic, but a train had 10 blocks of traffic held up for 34 minutes yesterday. Traffic was backed up from just south of Lincoln to 54. What is ironic is the train tracks are just south of the fire station on Broadway and had there been a fire to the south, there was no way for the fire crew of that station to get there.
it’s hardly what I would call ironic…just more excellent planning by the city.
As per the mall shooting it sounds like the kid that did it just had no hope for life. He was a despised reject. His family rejected him, his girl rejected him and his job rejected him. He was just a born loser and decided he always would be and rather than face a difficult life, he choose to end it now and take some others with him because he was angry at the world. Could he have been helped? I don’t know.
…he choose to end it now and take some others with him because he was angry at the world. Could he have been helped? I don’t know.
Posted by: Kev | December 06, 2007 at 06:37 AM
Used to be when people got to that point, they just jumped off a bridge or quietly blew their brains out. Now they feel a need to make a statement, and that statement seems to include taking as many innocents with them as possible.
It’s a strange society we live in.
In 1996, then-Gov. Huckabee joined the discussion, saying he planned to commute DuMond’s sentence in part because evidence in the case was “questionable.” Huckabee’s commutation announcement set off bitter complaints. On Jan. 16, 1997, he reversed the decision and denied clemency, although he told DuMond in a letter “my desire is that you be released from prison.”http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-huckabeedec06,1,1469690.story
Looks like this Republican has his own Willie Horton.
“Snuffy Smith” –
The Willie Horton comparison is flawed. Dukakis presided over a policy, but had nothing personally involved in the Willie Horton case.
Huckabee, on the other hand, got caught up in the anti-Clintonism of the mid 1990s and made DuMond’s release a personal political cause.
DuMond had previously turned state’s evidence in a claw-hammer murder in Oklahoma (he testified that he did, in fact, hit the victim with a claw hammer… but it wasn’t *the* fatal blow). DuMond was assiciated with other rapes (albeit, not adjudicated cases) and many of his previous victims wrote Huckabee objecting to the pardon.
Huckabee was up to his gills in the DuMond case, whereas Dukakis’ “sin” was he happened to be Governor when a previously-established policy happened to result in disastrous results.
This is for Parkay, and anyone else who wants to watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
Oh Parkay, just imagine. If you promoted everyone to become homosexual, you’d effectively end the need for abortion except in the event of health of the mother…not a single unplanned pregnancy ever!
Let’s hope Hukabee is the nominee. America is fed with Christians.
On the DuMond case, the fact that a local sheriff had DuMond’s balls in a jar had something to do with Hukabee’s attitude, I believe. To redress a vigilante castration may have been reasonable. Hukabee vs. Edwards — please, please.
On the DuMond case, the fact that a local sheriff had DuMond’s balls in a jar had something to do with Hukabee’s attitude, I believe.Posted by: Door King | December 06, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Door King, could you please provide a link for that? I’m very curious about the details. Was the guy actually casterated, or are you speaking figuratively?
Another unwinnable war:
http://warongreed.org/?utm_source=rgemail
Solomon, I believe Dumond was castrated literally, while in custody.. A shameful thing… But does not mitigate the evidence of his rapes and murders…
Solomon, I believe Dumond was castrated literally, while in custody.. A shameful thing… But does not mitigate the evidence of his rapes and murders…
Posted by: Chas. | December 06, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Agree.Thanks for the info, Chas.
Acting Gov. Jim Guy Tucker Wednesday commuted the sentence of Wayne Dumond, a castrated Forrest City man imprisoned for the 1984 kidnapping rape of a 17- year-old distant cousin of Gov. Bill Clinton.
The decision will make Dumond eligible for parole in 1995, after serving 10 years, but his attorney said with good time he could be eligible for release by August.
Tucker reduced Dumond’s life-plus-20-years sentence to 39 1/2 years in a decree issued hours after Clinton resumed a presidential campaign interrupted for six days by laryngitis. Clinton’s office issued a statement saying Clinton agreed with Tucker’s decision.
In a letter to Dumond’s attorney, John Wesley Hall, Tucker said he found no error in the jury’s guilty verdict. But he said the castration of Dumond before the start of trial should mitigate his sentence.
In March 1985, four months after Dumond’s arrest, two men castrated him. He was convicted of rape and kidnapping in August 1985. The castration has not been solved.
”Regardless of who was responsible, this was a reprehensible action which no society can condone,” Tucker said in the letter to Hall. ”It seems clear that it was intended as an extrajudicial, vigilante punishment of Mr. Dumond for the crime with which he had been charged.”
Tucker said he and Clinton discussed the decision in the past few days, but Tucker refused to give details of the conversations.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDVlOGQyZTY2ZGMwMGU1MmY5OTNmYzNhYTk2OGMxNzc=
There is more to the story than presented. The man should not have ever seen the light of day but by their own actions the Arkansans gave the ammunition for this to go forward. And yes they were on the sheriffs desk for days by all reports. If you do the research you will find the witnesses who saw them. That the crime was never ’solved’ was what helped Tucker and Huckabee take the action they did. According to this report Clinton was advised of the lessened sentence and concured.
Do Americans really understand what terrorism is, what it does to a society, and how it can be defeated?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/12/israeli_soldiers_us_sderot_terrorism.html
An interesting read from the experts on dealing with terror.
For three years the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America held its ground. It resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people despite threats that if it did not do so, the city would evict the group from a municipal building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06scouts.html
What do you think? Should homosexuals be allowed to lead groups of young boys?
I just read this info:The mall shooter was illegally carrying a stolen weapon in a gun-free zone.
Legal concealed carry permit owners were not allowed to have weapons on the mall premises. We’ll never know if the outcome would have been different if legal gun owners had been allowed to carry their weapons in the mall.
David Atkins, I heard that earlier. It would seem that the head long rush to ban legally carried weapons may be a double-edged sword. All of the gun-free zone signs in the world don’t stop a derainged criminal from carrying a gun. They just stop people who might possibly have made a difference in yesterday’s carnage.
David
On the Nebraska Carry forum one of the members had a post detailing how he was close enough to watch the spent casings eject from the shooters weapon….
…but he was disarmed because the mall has a Dis-armed Victim Zone policy.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315562,00.html
Looks like a hate crime to me. Should be rioting in the streets. Another Rodney King type beating.
Black cop beating a white man. See the video.
On the Nebraska Carry forum one of the members had a post detailing how he was close enough to watch the spent casings eject from the shooters weapon….
…but he was disarmed because the mall has a Dis-armed Victim Zone policy.
Posted by: Heckler_______
What a tragedy. And what mis-guided gun laws. Well-intentioned, perhaps, but mis-guided, none-the-less. Emotion-based laws that are not well thought out possibly lead, in this case, to additional deaths of innocent people.
lead, in this case, to additional deaths of innocent people.
Posted by: David Atkins | December 06, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Supposition based on bias.
No basis in fact.
Try again.
Heckler,
Do you have a link for the Nebraska Carry site mentioned?
Supposition based on bias.
No basis in fact.
Try again.
Posted by: J R | December 06, 2007 at 12:20 PM
J R, what do you base that on? I’d think that in a situation like that, you’d want at least a chance of defending yourself.
JR,
It’s particularly stupid of you to misquote something when the source is so easily found… just a few posts over your misquote. For the most part, I don’t respond to you anymore because of your poor skills and brittle intellect. YOU TRUNCATED THE QUOTE IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT. If you have a point to make, come up with an original thought. Don’t misquote people because some button got pushed in your limited brain. The ENTIRE quote included the word “possibly,” which is exactly where you spliced your misrepresentation.
Go finish your bottle.
I wonder if Hillary will promise to pass Brady Bill II banning all handguns today, or if she will wait until after the election.
The timing is right for her today, but she may not want to expose herself too much before the vote.
She might just propose Mandatory Gun Registration, without mentioning her Gun Ban.
Mandatory health care is part of her plan too. Big Brother (Sister?) will be able to tell us what to do, thank God, cause we be too stupid to think on our own.
Hillary needs to get the guns banned first though. (Read Alinksy!)
Too bad the Security guards in that mall didn’t have guns. And too bad those who had concealed carry permits were banned from carrying their guns into that mall.
Took 6 minutes for the cops to get there. Fast, but not fast enough.
Just dial 911, who needs to be able to defend themselves?
David
David
Pretty small forum, not many posts.www.ccwne.com
Type pad doesnt like my link.
What someone who WOULD carry a gun if he could did not have one? And because of that more people died?
That’s a stretch. It supposes:
How the carrier would react.
That the carrier would get the drop and drop the shooter before he himself was killed.
That in panic, the carrier would not accidentally shoot the wrong person or otherwise hit an innocent.
That’s just for starters.
But you gun crazy wild west wannabes ALWAYS know all the answers armchair dontcha?
How about the REAL problem here.
The kid had ready access to the firearm. And was the firearm even legal?
You also assume that Hecklers first hand witness is honest.
HARDLY a given on a biased thread.
From an eye witness at the mall shooting, who did not have his weapon because the mall bans them:
Re: Mall shooting at Westroads in Omaha——————————————————————–I just wanted to let everyone know I was in that store today at 1:35 pm, 3rd floor, by customer service and seen the gunman in action. Close enough to see the shells ejecting.
If anyone is interested, I can post my account of things here, as well as my opinion. I will assure everyone here, that had I had a gun, I had a clear shot for several seconds. I am not trying to make a political statement, but it is a fact.
http://p207.ezboard.com/Mall-shooting-at-Westroads-in-Omaha/fccwnebraskafrm7.showMessage?topicID=394.topic
Further proof required.
JR
The kid had a felony drug conviction, can’t own a weapon, period. Report is the weapon was stolen.
Would someone on an Internet forum lie about something like that? Possibly, but he is known by other forum members who seem to believe him. If he was lying it would come out in time; he claimed he was interviewed by the police, it would be in the record, so the lie would come out in time.
Sure he could be lying but your bigoted view of CCW holders leads you to EXPECT him to lie.
Sheep.
Once again, another mass shooting. And once again, in a mandated disarmed victim zone. How many of these do we have to see before we figure out it’s not a mere coincidence? At what point are we tired of watching citizens being gunned down with impunity?
So what do we do?
OK, let’s deal with what we KNOW. We know that no gun law would have prevented this person from doing what he did.
We KNOW that CC holders are not a threat to anyone, except perhaps those who would harm them or their loved ones. Crimes of violence committed by CC holders with their weapons are all but unknown, and it doesn’t take rocket science to know why.
We KNOW that properly trained and prepared persons are capable of acting appropriately, even under times of stress. Cops do it daily; our soldiers so it daily. Nearly anyone can, given training and practice.
While certainly we CANNOT know that a trained CC holder would have prevented further bloodshed in this case, we know that persons carrying concealed weapons can limit the harms from this kind of event. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml
(other than the poster on the Nebraska forum, and I have no evidence to disbelieve him, do you, JR? And by that rationale yo espouse, given the biases you wear on your sleeves, why should be believe you?)
Yea, I know - it was an off-duty cop, not a civilian. A distinction without a difference. If you think there’s something magical in officers that mere mortals are incapable of understanding or doing, that speaks to your limitations, not mine.
In short, while there are certainly no guarantees, don’t you think trained individuals capable of defending themselves and perhaps others are a better option that watching shooters like this one gun down multiple victims with impunity? How many have to die to satisfy the mindless emotional response of some that “guns=bad?”
In my opinion, given those choices, it’s no choice at all.
Reports are the gun was an AK47..illegal?
Stolen from shooters father…liability on the part of the father. Poor secure of weapon?
And I’M not the one who is getting emotional or calling names here.
A post was made that distorted the facts with supposition. I called it that’s all.
Further? Outside of gun ….enthusiasts, I seem to be the only poster WITHOUT an agenda.
The rest seem to want this event as a rationale for more guns on more people in more places.
Well there is a problem with that.
You cannot COMPEL, so far, a business to allow conceal carry. Doing so removes rights from the business or property owner.
heh. That’s MY “turf”
JR
It was an SKS not an AK47.
And how many laws did he break in doing what he did? You want more laws?
What do you think? Should homosexuals be allowed to lead groups of young boys?
Posted by: Solomon
I’ll jump. Regardless of the sexual orientation, all leaders of small children need to be supervised, evaluated, or investigated - particularly if they lead alone. With that said, parents need to be involved with their children in their activities. You don’t just drop them off and say, “Pick you up in two hours.” You come in to the house, meet the scout leader, master, and ask him/her their principles or teaching objectives. “So what are you going to teach my kid?” Is a great opener without sounding like an inquisition. Parents, and big brothers/sisters should volunteer to HELP or assist the scout leader. (This could be any situation, even school). Most of my years afiliated with scouts, the leaders LOVED having helpers.In fact, they cannot do it by themselves many times.
As a homosexual, you should expect and be happy to answer parents concerns and invite them to participate in the meetings.
But as an institution, any private organization has a right to exclude anyone from their membership. Pretty simple. Freedom. But if that organization desires to use public property - then they have to play the game. If the laws of governmental/public bodies prohibit discrimation (or buck teeth), the organization either conforms to use the public property - or go somewhere else to meet. Even if it’s been 80 years.
Hey J R it appears people are on to you. You post flame bait everywhere you go. That or just general insulting comments.
You save the world yet? Or convert even one?
Nevermind. I don’t want an answer.I know.
Ya know what people in that mall did?
They did the right thing and ran.
Now let’s think fairly about things.
They only had one direction they needed to go. AWAY from the gunfire.
Now let’s say there were a few people with concealed weapons.
Well you’ve just turned a shooting rampage (bad) into a potential combat zone (worse)
What direction do the people run? Who is the “bad guy” and who is on your side?
Hey running aint in my nature either. But neither is making a bad situation worse.
J R you are stirring the pot for the pleasure of it. You are on a fishing expedition, and have had a few bites. You’ve voiced your opinion, and now are prepared to argue all day on it. Enjoy!
JR
Here’s a clue. The guy with the rifle walking around and shooting the people without guns is the bad guy. It’s really pretty simple.
Running can be a good thing. If I were there with one of my children and had a clear escape route I’d be making tracks. But if I were cornered with no escape route I’d like to have an option besides throwing shoes or perfume bottles as a defense.
JR
And to say you are here with no agenda is clearly false to those of us who’ve been around here awhile.
test
I’ll try to do this in parts, I guess . . . Part I.
JR
The idea of you as the poster without an agenda is a joke of the highest order! Moreover, generally, your posts simply display your ignorance on the subject of firearms in general and the trained proper use of same.
I’ll agree in one respect,, however: if one can retreat, and do so without putting oneself or others in additional jeopardy, it’s always a wise choice.
But the idea that trained citizens capable of defending themselves turn the situation into a combat zone is worse is pure fantasy - worse, it’s knowing BS. It assumes that CC holders would be out there willy-nilly firing off dozens of rounds, essentially at random. CC is now legal in 48 states, in one form or another; I challenge you to find instances of a CC holder reacting as you imagine. You’ll find few, if any. I’ll also invite you to join me at an IDPA event, JR; what you’ll learn is that your imagination could not be further from the truth.
I suspect you’ll decline, however. And I suspect you do so because truth isn’t what you’re in the least interested in.
Part II:
continued . . .
Let’s put it this way: when the cops arrive, what do they bring with them to deal with the situation? GUNS!!!
If a cop had been present in the moment, and the opportunity to take out the assailant without putting others in additional risk had presented itself, should he have done so? Even you would agree - of course.
It appears this poster in Nebraska would have had that opportunity - a clear shot - had he had his weapon. It was denied him by a misguided, even if well-meaning, policy. He - not a bit surprisingly, given that he was a CC holder - was obeying the law. And it may - note may - have cost additional lives for him to do so.
The question still stands: how many more times do we watch our citizens gunned down with impunity? Neither of us want that, of course. We know what we are doing now isn’t working; the gun free zone is, in effect, a free fire zone for those who would do harm. We know more laws banning guns don’t work; this gun was apparantly illegally possessed. Moreover, there is of course a constitutional bar to simply banning guns.
So give me a policy option, JR. You’ve impuned the character and motives of those who have the audacity to disagree with you, can you offer an viable alternative? It’s not a trick question, and there’s no secret catch. Can you suggest a policy change which carries a significant likelihood of success in at least reducing the likelihood of more mass shootings like this one?
Subject: Dear Santa
Dear Santa,
I wud like a kool toy space ranjur fer Xmas. Iv ben a gud boy all yeer. yer Frend, BiLLy
Dear Billy,
Nice spelling. You’re on your way to a career in lawn care.
How about I send you a friggin’ book so you can learn to read and write?
I’m giving your older brother the space ranger. At least HE can spell!
Santa
__________________________________Dear Santa,
I have been a good girl all year, and the only thing I ask for is peace and joy in the world for everybody! Love, Sarah
Dear Sarah,
Your parents smoked pot when they had you, didn’t they?
Santa
__________________________________Dear Santa,
I don’t know if you can do this, but for Christmas, I’d like for my mommy and daddy to get back together. Please see what you can do. Love, Teddy
Dear Teddy,
Look, your dad’s banging the babysitter like a screen door in a hurricane. Do you think he’s gonna give that up to come back to your frigid mom, who rides his ass constantly? It’s time to give up that dream. Let me get you some nice Legos instead.
Santa
__________________________________Dear Santa,
I want a new bike, a Playstation, a train, some G.I. Joes, a dog, a drum set, a pony and a tuba.
Love, Francis
Dear Francis,
Who names their kid “Francis” nowadays? I bet you’re gay; I’ll set you up with a Barbie.
Santa
Should gays lead groups of young boys? YES! Gay does not equal pedophile. God.
I wonder if the CC poster in Omaha would have made any difference at all, had he had his weapon with him. The rationale for the above is the action of the shooter in apparently firing on and killing a man on the escalator one floor below who was calling 911 on a cell phone. Thus, if the individual who posted was, indeed, on the third floor, etc., and had gone for his firearm, may we assume the shooter would not have observed this and reacted by directing fire his way?
GMC, you are right by saying “may”, and with that I agree; he “may” have been able to make a difference. And, implicit within that is that he may not have been able to make a difference. We’ll never know.
We’ll also never know whether any other policy would have prevented the shooter from bringing the apparently stolen AK 47 (per cnn.com the rifle is described as an AK 47) into the Von Maur store. There are some who, in good faith, argue that it would. Others argue it would not. I don’t have an answer, but I speculate that in this particular case there would not have been a different outcome.
And, GMC, I’ve no policy response that makes (to me) any more sense than that which exists now, including the suggestion inherent in your Part II that the current policy be changed to allow CC permit holders to carry their weapons in the mall. I’m not one that believes that CC permit holders will have gunfights in the halls, etc., and I don’t believe that allowing CC permit holders to lawfully carry in the mall would have deterred the unfortunate event of yesterday in Omaha.
“A mortgage happens to be a contract between a borrower and a lender. Do we really want to be in a position where the government changes the playing field and makes legislative changes to modify those contracts? Would it even be legal to do so?”
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/103991/Bush-Subprime-Plan-Too-Much-or-Too-Little;_ylt=AqZie8X8VtCBkbH4sH6wCn67YWsA?
The legality does not matter, only that which is the most politically expedient. Which candidate is going to have the guts to make borrowers honor their agreed upon contract?
Hillary has come up gutless, next?
furthermore…
“It is unfortunate that when something bad happens in the economic world, many lawmakers react by forgetting or ignoring everything they learned in junior-high economics class…they can end up hurting the very people they think they are helping.”
Bush sponsored the bill, he is gutless as well.
rfl, I agree it will come back and bite everybody later down the road, But I also agree the lenders were looking for a way out, they get nothing out of a empty house or paying the cost involved with keeping it up and getting it ready to sell. these are cost they can not absorb..
GMC
>suggest a policy change which carries a significant likelihood of success in at least reducing the likelihood of more mass shootings like this one?
It is the weapon’s fault when these tragic crimes happen. The gun industry is the blame.
You want a policy change?
Stop paying NRA dues! How’s that? Will you follow that advice?
Everybody stop paying NRA dues is the best policy change start.
It’s self compliance policy who will do it? The NRA overwhelming supports selling war weapons retail.
Policy change demands you have to be against them.
Counter insurgency is the reason to have mass killing weapons for war in a home. Someone “bent” thinks confiscation might happen or they will someday take up arms against Feds and police.
That isn’t a weapon for home protection, bullets will shred drywall and go through doors. Shooting intruder in a home with that is liable to kill neighbors next door.
How about more real and substantive policy change.
Eradication of those weapons being sold retail. Collectors banned from trading them. Their ammunition not sold either.
That’s real, when America finally says some guns aren’t necessary, their too dangerous in the wrong hands. Weapons for war shouldn’t be sold retail or traded.
A loser gets guns and shoots up a crowd of people. It doesn’t take any training. A lazy punk just aims and pulls the trigger fast as he can.
So there it is, a slob, idiot, piece of crap personality that hates has access to weapons for war sold retail. Steals it from a paranoid collector family member in this case.
VT -
Let me say this, to make sure I’m clear. I do not want the state to force private property owners to permit CC; I think it should be the storekeeper’s choice. What private property owners do with their property, and what they permit or bar, is up to them. Misguided or not, it is their property to govern as they choose. It is likewise my choice whether or not to go there.
Where it is a gov’t facility, however, absent a very few locations (jails, perhaps secured courthouses), I would vote to end the limitation on carry. Ending the limitation carries no additional risk, and carries at least the possibility of ready defense should it be necessary. I hope, of course, it’s never necessary, but unfortunately history tells us that it indeed may be.
I don’t necessarily think CC would have deterred it either, VT, but it seems that time and time again these tragedies happen in the disarmed victim zones. Maybe that is mere coincidence, but given that most places (if the experience so far in Kansas is typical) permit carry, I’m skeptical. We cannot know, of course, but I’m afraid that for someone like this, bent on inflicing carnage, that innocuous sign on the door indicates he has a better than average chance of being unopposed as he opens fire.
The best we could probably hope for is that an armed, trained individual was in a place where he could have put an end to the shooter’s rampage. Unfortunately, misguided policies like the one at this mall end even that possibility.
GMC
I am not dishonest about my intentions.
I oppose conceal carry. My take is more guns is more problems.
And if you look? I did not start this.
It was BOLDY suggested that the presence of one or more concealed carriers would have saved lives in this instance. My original post only pointed out the dishonest simplicity of the suggestion.
And let us be clear. YOU have an agenda of your own. You have said you will not frequent a business that does not allow you to carry your gun.
It’s ok. You are HELPING me give this arguement two sides.
Yup the cops have guns. That’s their job.
Now if they get to that mall yesterday, how do they tell the “bad guy”? Seems like anyone with a gun visible is going to complicate the assessment of the situation, no? Maybe get killed themselves?
I DO mostly see the right idea here. Run that is.
Think about those who would not run. Some yahoo hears the shots. He can help. He heads that way. Well the people running toward him don’t know he’s part of the solution! He’s just another person with a gun. Now where do they run?
Does the mall assume additional liability if say, one of the victims was a concealed carry permit holder, but complied with the store policy banning guns?
In other words, if not for the store policy, I may have been able to defend myself and save my life?
Oh and GMC?
In almost all of these cases, the shooter is suicidal. That was the case here.
A crazed person bent on death for themselves and others is not much concerned whether anyone else might be armed or not. They don’t shoot themselves out of boredom.
Someday one of these awful things will happen at a gun show. Then the arguement that more guns would stop it will be gone.
This is not a CC issue. It’s about the gun used by that punk.
CC weren’t there in that mall and didn’t do anything if they were.
All CC aren’t brave! Self protection demands take care of family or friends safety before considering firing back against a gunman.
Why did his family member have the gun? SKS or AK 47, whatever the rifle, its not made for home protection or hunting.
It has to stop being sold and traded.
I don’t attempt to hide my position. You did, claiming that, in your words, “I seem to be the only poster WITHOUT an agenda.” (-JR at 1:08)
Further, JR, you misstate your opponent’s position. It was stated, on a Nebraska forum by a person who was there, that had he had his legal CC weapon, he could have ended this massacre.
I don’t know if that is the case, of course. And the posters here have written only that a CC holder MAY have been able to prevent more carnage. We cannot know for sure, of course.
The only thing we know for sure is that current policy continues to fail. Permitting CC holders in places like this mall carries no additional risk of harm, and MAY prevent, or at least lessen, tragedies such as this one.
It pains me to say this, but I’m not sure I can come to another conclusion. Could it be that you oppose common sense changes in the law because you believe that tragedies like this one further your agenda?
PLEASE tell me that is not the case.
So what’s your point JR? That a madman can’t be stopped so do nothing?
That’s unacceptable.
Not only is there a God given right to self-defense, there is a 2nd Amendment that affirms this right.
JR, how would you like your arms tied behind your back so an attacker can beat the stuffing out of you?
THAT is exactly what you are proposing the Government does by prohibiting people from carrying firearms.
Hillary is your girl, that’s for sure.
Don’t ya think, JR, it says something that these incidents DON’T happen at gun shows?
GMC, for me your clarification was not needed. In rereading my post, I see where you might have thought it was, and all I can say is that I didn’t phrase that as well as I might.
I understand your arguments concerning the policy you feel is misguided. They are rational and well made. I will say that the existence of signage indicating the mall as a place where firearms were not allowed did not, IMHO, make any difference to the shooter here. Rather, the size of the mall, the large store and the potential of making a big splash on the way out, as it were, were to my mind the operative factors. Whether concealed weapons were permitted was not a factor, again IMO.
Yes, the possibility you hypothecate was denied due to the policy; no doubt. To me, that is a decision to be made by the property owner, and I know we both agree there. While I would hope this would not occur, I would support the right of the mall owner (in this case) to have metal detectors and guards at the entrances thereto. Although I and many others likely would have a negative reaction to that decision, if there was a place within the mall which was the only place a certain desired good might be obtained (no online shopping, no catalog sales), I’d grudgingly put up with it to get that which I want.
I’m not yet sure where I stand on opening up governmental facilities other than those you present to lawful concealed carry. I tend to lean towards not allowing it in K-12 schools, as again I think that someone determined to “go out with a bang” (pardon the unfortunate pun) would not be deterred from invading such a school by that. Again, your presented possibility exists; I’m just not there, yet.
I know this issue makes you very emotional Max.
The oldest and best form of self defense is to get the hell outta the way of the danger. I have suggested how conceal carry might interfere with that. At least for the majority who are not armed.
That’s a great point GMC. Not only do you never hear of shootings at gun shows, but you don’t hear about shooting deaths at shooting ranges either.
I feel safer at the gun range, then I do walking down the streets of many cities in the US.
And I have no doubt that some Brady & Co gun-banners are hoping for a few big shooting incidents to launch their next gun ban campaign.
Are they devious enough to propose such restrictive legislation incrementally, 1)in order to make the changes small enough to not be noticed, and 2)in order to make it easier for criminals to commit more gun crimes?
Then waiting for enough gun murderes to finally push for an all out gun ban?
The word you left out of your last post is “yet” GMC.
This is not to hope for a shooting at a gun show to prove my point. I simply mean that venue has little to do with someone bent on dying and taking as many people with him as possible.
Well…except for that church thing. Those people couldn’t run I guess. But having someone armed would be at odds with their faith.
“Does the mall assume additional liability if say, one of the victims was a concealed carry permit holder, but complied with the store policy banning guns?”
Max, I probably should leave that one for the civil expert here. But, and VT, feel free to correct me, it seems that it’s pretty tenuous and very difficult to prove that “but for” a victim’s complying with the ban, he would have not been harmed. There is probably no way to know whether that is the case. That would depend entirely on the facts, of course. At some point, such a suit may come.
What if I frame it this way: In this case, the Nebraska poster says he had a clear shot, had he been carrying his weapon. He was barred from doing so. Some of the victims would have been saved had he had his weapon and taken that shot.
Assume that such a scenario could be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Do the families of the victims, especially some of the last victims shot, have a viable cause of action against the mall: “but for” the policy, this man could have saved my loved-one’s life, and was prevented from doing so by the policy?
Perhaps this circumstances is grounds for such a case?
VT - wanna join in?
JR, no question, the 1st option is to flee if at all possible.
IF fleeing is NOT an option, then what?
Emotional? You bet! When it comes to protecting my life, my wife, and/or my kids, ya, that IS emotional for sure.
And Vaughn, I just gotta give you a hard time on this one, really respect your posts, but I had to laugh when you stated the obvious so eloquently here:
“I will say that the existence of signage indicating the mall as a place where firearms were not allowed did not, IMHO, make any difference to the shooter here.”
Your observation is obviously not obvious to all.
GMC,
Remember that Illinois gun store under suspicion selling more guns to criminals. You wanted an AR-15 from him to give support. Half jokingly but intentional.
When a piece of crap uses those kinds of weapons in public, why again do you want one?
You celebrate the Right those kinds of guns being sold and traded.
Until someone like you says that’s enough, America doesn’t need weapons of war sold retail, these mass killings with toys you like will continue.
Policy change demands you make a difference.
It’s not society supposed to change, allowing guns in gun free zones.
Supporters of the NRA have to change.
Max, as to the civil liability about which you ask. My answer is no, there would not be any additional civil liability imposed. Putting on my plaintiff’s lawyer hat, I could more easily see where civil liability might be imposed upon the mall owner if concealed carry permit holders were permitted to bring their firearms into the mall, and a bystander was injured or killed as the result of a shot fired by that person trying to take out the gunman. A big stretch to get there, I freely admit, but not as big a stretch as what you were asking about.
Speaking of civil liability in general, I wonder (and no, I’m not proposing this as what should be done) if weapons owners should be held strictly liable for damages resulting from use of a weapon owned by them, under the tort theory applied at common law to maintaining a dangerous instrumentality, e.g., the landowner who dams a river which subsequently breaches, flooding his neighbors. There would need to be a shield in the case of a weapon stolen from a lawful owner (not a convicted felon, not a minor, etc.), so long as the owner reports the theft within a certain period of time after the theft was discovered, say 24 hours. I’ve some issues with the above (I know GMC can discern the source of these issues), but in general, what do the rest of you think?
Prayers and thoughts to our Nebraska neighbors who lost loved ones or have loved ones seriously wounded.
May God keep you, bless you and heal your hearts and bodies.
Westroads Mall,There is a Dick’s sporting goods at the mall. Weapons were available.Everybody is second guessing what they would have done. It”s easy to be Rambo on a blog.
Annie I was in this paticular VonMaurs 3 weeks ago. It is at one end of the mall and isolated from the rest of the stores. It would have all been over by the time anyone ran to Dicks and ran back.
Responding a bit more to Max, and adopting GMC’s analysis a bit, the issue would then be whether the potential reduction of the number of victims was a matter of speculation; in other words, while we might speculate that to be the case, is there any admissible evidence that could show the same? It’s my opinion that at this point, it’s all speculative, which removes liability from the mall.
Interestingly, I think we have all accepted the Nebraska poster’s post as being a fair representation of his relative position to the shooter, etc. Maybe it’s not? I’m willing to assume his post as factual, for sake of discussion; again, I wasn’t present, so I don’t know if it is factual.
That’s OK, Max, have your fun; no problem there, as I was merely expressing my opinion, which is worth as much as I charged for it. :-)
Isn’t the shooter already held liable under both criminal and civil law Vaughn?
Not giving up yet on the other issue - increased liability on the part of the mall for not allowing a concealed carry permit holder to carry.
Say that Rubber Boots were not allowed to be worn into a mall, and thus, I had to take off my rubber boots and leave them in my car before entering the mall. And say during a snowfall I enter that mall without my rubber boots, and I slip and fall break my hip, I’m in a hospital for a month, and disabled for a year.
Does the mall have increased liability because 1)the sidewalk had snow on it, and 2)I was not allowed to wear my rubber boots that MAY have prevented my fall?
My example may seem ridiculous to some, but to me, it’s ridiculous that concealed carry permit holders would be banned from carrying their firearms in a shopping mall.
Certainly gives new weight to the argument that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
Ahh, “consequential” damages?
More people were shot after I might have had a chance to stop the attacker.
“It was BOLDY suggested that the presence of one or more concealed carriers would have saved lives in this instance.
Posted by: J R”
JR -
Who suggested that? After reading back through all the posts I couldn’t find anyone that said that. I see where you misstated a post by David A., and then he corrected you. But know one suggested as a certainty that a person with a CC gun definitely would have made a difference. Where did you get that info?
I don;t really know if their had been a few cc types there, if it would have made a difference. Perhaps. Perhaps even one less death? So does the “risk” of allowing cc in places like the mall, outweigh the “risk” of this happening again? Perhaps those of you opposed could rationalize that with the loved ones of the last one killed. Actually, though I do not know of ANY incident where some cc type started killing people, or killed someone else while trying to stop a bad guy, it still makes me a little nervous to allow cc in such places. However, for me, the nervousness about the unkown and unlawful cc types makes me more thoughtful. So for those of you who discount the positive of cc, I understand. I would also wonder your reaction to this proposal. Provide for and Pay for armed law enforcement in any gathering, or place of gathering, over a certain amount of people. Give them the authjority to cut down, without question, anyone pulling a firearm. For a mall the size of town east. Four cops, continually on duty. Two on the upper level, two on the lower level. And if cost is a concern, how many times have I heard ‘It’s worth it if it saves just one life”? Takers? Comments?
Max, putting the rules regarding premises liability aside for a moment, your hypothetical has a flaw IMO; nothing requires you to remove your rubber boots in the car; merely that you not wear the boots into the mall, which means you might wear them to the door, and then remove them; sure, what to do with the boots? An enterprising person/entity would likely have lockers to rent in which the same could be stored so you wouldn’t have to carry them, or you could just carry them around with you in the mall. Sorry, Max, still can’t get there.
By having unarmed security guards, was the Mall negligent in maintaining adequate security, especially since the mall prohibited concealed carry permit holders from carrying a firearm to defend themselves?
By descreasing the ability of individuals to defend themselves, did the Mall assume increased liability for protecting its customers? Was there an implied contract for protection, given the prohibition of self-protection?
(Not a lawyer, but I’ve watched one on TV, and watched several in divorce court. Not a pretty picture.)
So does the “risk” of allowing cc in places like the mall, outweigh the “risk” of this happening again?
Posted by: littlejohn
LJ, What do you perceive the risks being of CC permit holders having guns in a mall? If you could articulate that, perhaps the concerns could be addressed. Not trying to preempt your thoughts, but it seems that those who are trained and licensed with CC guns are less a threat than those who are not.
“It would have all been over by the time anyone ran to Dicks and ran back.”
grm,You don’t know that. Even if cc was legal in the mall what’s the odds of a cc guy or gal being at that place at that time. What if they froze like a rabbit crossing the road. Banks have armed security they get robbed.There is no solution. I’m not against guns I have an arsenal myself. CC just don’t think it’s going to make that much of a difference.
Max, the question becomes (to us legal types) whether it was reasonably foreseeable that an armed, mentally unstable teenager would steal a weapon, and then bring it to the mall to shoot as many folks as he could before committing suicide. If such is reasonably foreseeable, then is having unarmed security guards present or banning concealed carry from the premises in any way the proximate cause of the injuries and deaths resulting from the foreseeable actions. It’s been a LONG time since I took Torts I and II, but I think the issue you are attempting to raise fails on foreseeability (if that’s even a word), and if for some reason, it passes that test, then proximate cause relationship must be satisfied.
Given the few facts that have been determined, the proximate cause of the injuries/deaths was the action of the shooter. Now, Justice Cardozo might have seen it differently (see the Palsgraf case), but I still can’t get there from here, so to speak.
VT, and all:
I tend to agree with your analysis, and like you, I’m accepting the Nebraska poster to be truthful; again, I have no reason to believe he wasn’t. Let me paint a specific scenario, and presume, arguendo, that same can be proven by by a preponderance of the evidence (the usual civil standard).
In a mall, Scumbucket (S) draws weapon, fires 2 shots, pauses as weapon stovepipes. Our Nebraska CC holder, Couragous Charlie (CC) hears shots, ducks, and when the shooting pauses, looks up from behind a counter. Sees S holding rifle and attempting to clear the jam. CC is 10-15 feet away and unnoticed by S, and CC is a good shot; CC is trained and can demonstrate consistant accuracy, even under stress at that distance, but is without his weapon due to policy. After a few more seconds, S clears his rifle, and re-opens fire, killing Victor (v).
Does V have a recoverable claim against mall owner? Does CC have a claim, as he is in great distress when persons die and he could have prevented same? Suppose CC has his weapon, and fires, killing S. Any liability, civil or criminal? Suppose CC fires, killing S, but one round misses and kills Bystander (B)? Does B have a cause of action, and against who? Discuss.
Bringing back nightmares yet, VT?
No, I will not be grading, but good answerers are invited to the range, my treat!!
Just an observation
Annie about the likelyhood that anyone could have gotten there and back.
Remembering back to the only shooting I remember at a Wichita mall, Towne East - it happened on a Christmas Eve late afternoon. If it had happened next to me I would have first been concerned with covering those with me and second with drawing a gun.
No good solution but I do think that a well trained population with those who feel comfortable with CC doing so would make a difference in several cases.
The restaurant in Texas - I think it was Killeen - several diners were gunned down and one of the survivers who lost her parents had a revolver in her car but wasn’t allowed to bring it in. She was in law enforcement. It was right after this that Texas became CC.
This discussion won’t go away.
Nightmares are present, GMC. I presume I have the three hours traditionally allotted (assuming this is the only question on the final) to write my answer. :-)
VT - the three hours are better spent, at this point in our lives, at the range; especially if I can get my hands on that Garrand.
;-)
Careful Reader-
There is in my mind, a certain risk factor in allowing individuals to conceal carry in places like malls. There is always the possibility of a cc having a “mental moment”, or a “poor judgement moment” or in trying to take down a perp, taking down someone else. It has not happened to my knowledge, there are always risk factors. That risk must be weighed against the risk of multiple individuals being shot by a perp. Whenever it comes to risks that can be identified, and they have huge consequences, they should be thought out thoroughly, no?
Agreed, GMC.
BTW, to the poster who pointed out the liability of the shooter supra, I agree; I was presenting a case for imposing strict liability upon the owner of the weapon involved who may not be the shooter.
“what’s the odds of a cc guy or gal being at that place at that time”
An estimated 19,500 people in Nebraska would have a concealed carry permit in 2007. That’s just over 1% of the population. (1,768,000 people in Nebraska)http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/11/15/local/doc455bc739abeff019327376.txt
How many people were in that mall that day?
14.5 Million visitors there annually. Around 145,000 might have concealed carry permits. That’s 397 per day, on average. Likely there are more visitors this time of year.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atby15O2DGko&refer=home
Somebody above suggested 2 cops could patrol the whole mall. How effective would 397 be? (Granted they are not there all day long.)
When confronted with a psychotic like this, we need more GUTS not necessarily more guns . . .
Thanks for the clarification Vaughn. I wasn’t considering the liability of the owner of the gun, supposedly the step-Dad of the shooter according to the news reports I’ve read. And the shooter stole the gun from the step-Dad.
I’m sure state laws very, but beyond keeping the gun in your home and locking the doors on your home, what does the law require you to do to secure your property from theft? Or does the law require you to secure your property from theft?
In my boots example above (which you shot down - crashed and burned now!) you said I could wear my boots in the parking lot and leave them outside the store, where they would be subject to theft!
About those boots:
I didn’t actually say if I fell inside or outside the mall.
“And say during a snowfall I enter that mall without my rubber boots, and I slip and fall break my hip”.
If I fell just inside the doorway on a very wet, slippery floor (wet from all that melted snow people are tracking inside), then would that make any difference in your opinion?
It’s gettin so deep here, I’m gonna have to put my rubber boots on now!
How many guts you want shot, Capn? There were 8.
LJ
While there may be indeed some theoretical “risk factor” in permitting CC holders to carry in public places like malls, the experience of CC in the 40+ states which permit it over the last 20 years or so indicates that there is, for all intents and purposes, NO real additional risk. Our experience has been that licensed legal CC holders are simply not a risk to commit offenses with their carry weapons. It’s not hard to figure out why, with just a moment’s thought.
So I think the additional risk to permitting CC holders to carry in your equasion is negligable, at most.
“. . . for all intents and purposes, [CC poses] NO real additional risk.”
True enough, GMC.
On the other hand, it demonstrates no additional benefits either.
“…for all intents and purposes, NO real additional risk.” (GMC70)
Ummmm you want to look those families of the 8 people killed in Omaha yesterday, square in the face and try to tell THEM that??
Capn:
“no additional benefits either”
Uh, well, unless of course, you happen to be that person, in that moment, who needs that weapon right now.
Then, the benefits are everything.
Of course, that’s exactly who CC seeks to benefit. Individuals.
Maybe that’s why so many liberals oppose CC; liberals tend see us as members of groups, not as individuals.
On the other hand, it demonstrates no additional benefits either.
Posted by: CapnAmerica
___________
On the contrary, Capn, The off-duty officer who had a gun at the mall shooting last Spring clearly mitigated the carnage that would have otherwise occurred.
Max, that’s why I said “putting the rules regarding premises liability aside for the moment” above. In the days of contributory negligence, the fact that there was water from melted snow on the floor would be sufficient to put you on notice that the floor was wet, and potentially slippery, and thus you would need to exercise caution in proceeding to walk on the floor; any “slip and fall” at that point could presumably be at least partially the result of your negligence, and bar you from recovery. Under comparative fault, as it exists in Kansas, the question for the jury would be to assess the fault, if any, of each party as the same would be deemed to contribute to the accident. Thus, the jury might decide the mall was 55% at fault by not keeping the floor mopped, and you were 45% at fault in continuing to walk knowing the floor was wet, and the amount of your recovery would be adjusted to reflect this. Or, it might decide that each party was 50% at fault, which means you don’t recover; or, that you were greater than 50% at fault (same result).
That’s why in Torts we discussed the case of a slip and fall in a grocery store, with a lettuce leaf being the cause; if the leaf was brown, that indicated a breach of duty on the part of the store to keep the premises “safe” to a business invitee, the brown leaf indicating it had been there long enough for the store, by and through its employees, to know about it and not doing something to remedy the situation; if it was green, then the leaf had recently fallen on the floor, and the store hadn’t had enough time to remedy the matter, and also if it was green, the customer had a better chance of seeing and avoiding it, which would presumably bar the customer from recovery.
“…for all intents and purposes, NO real additional risk.” (GMC70)
Ummmm you want to look those families of the 8 people killed in Omaha yesterday, square in the face and try to tell THEM that??
Posted by: Chas. | December 06, 2007 at 04:47 PM
—–Tell the victims that?
Absolutely. No CC holder took those lives. In fact, if a CC holder had been there, armed, he may (note MAY) have been able to save some lives.
I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you misunderstood my post. Otherwise, I’d have to conclude you are accusing CC holders of killing those poor folks. Surely you don’t mean that, do you?
Democrats who claim to be pro-life like PA Sen. Bob Casey cannot be trusted. Casey is actually a baby-hating liar and spineless cheat. After defeating pro-life Republican Sen. Santorum by claiming to be pro-life, Casey proceeded to promote abortions by voting in favor of taxpayer funding for abortions, voting against the Mexico City policy, and voting against the Vitter Amendment, intended to stop Title X taxpayer funding for abortions.
The baby-hating Democrat Party can twist the arms of so-called pro-life Democrats enough to force a pro-abortion vote any time they want. And they will.- - -
Since June 2006, when the HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, there have been 28 reported cases in which pregnant women miscarried after receiving the vaccine. The series of expensive injections is routinely, and with considerable encouragement from media and other groups influenced by Merck & Co.’s high drug profits, administered to teenage girls, some of whom do not know they are pregnant. Nonetheless, the FDA refuses any further investigation into the dangerous drug’s safety, insisting that some young mothers will miscarry anyway, and disregarding 8 reported deaths and 3461 adverse reactions reported.See news page
Omaha’s Westroads Mall posts signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property, the same as Trolley Square Mall in Utah, where another multiple shooting occurred in February.Signs don’t stop shooting spree killers. Guns do.The SKS semi-automatic rifle is not defined as an assault rifle. Differing news reports are referring to the Omaha shooter’s weapon, likely stolen from his stepfather, as an SKS rifle or an AK-47 rifle or an old Russian military rifle. Is this the most accuracy the news media is capable of?The Russian SKS and the AK-47 are not the same. The AK-47 was a replacement for the SKS rifle. The shooter, Robert Hawkins, 19, with a record as a depressed junkie and boozer, was able to fire a large number of shots and kill 8 people in a matter of a few minutes, likely using semi-automatic fire, one shot per trigger pull, by using two 30-round magazines taped together for rapid reloading.The AK-47 automatic rifle is an assault rifle. The SKS semi-automatic carbine rifle is not.The real weapon here was created by people who let a troubled young man destroy his life with illegal booze and drugs, and failed to insist on effective treatment for his depression.
Let’s see a guy with a pistol, would be expected to go up against a guy with an assault rifle. Pretty slim odds the pistol packer would make a good shot especially with all the adrenalin flowing.
Just on the news: AMT relief had been passed by the House; however the Republic filibuster has blocked it in the Senate. Republics don’t want this tax relief unless ti is done 100% on the credit card.
Let’s see a guy with a pistol, would be expected to go up against a guy with an assault rifle. Pretty slim odds the pistol packer would make a good shot especially with all the adrenalin flowing.
Posted by: The Phantom | December 06, 2007 at 05:02 PM
Depends on how the pistol packing person was trained.
If the CC person took an urban combat course, he/she would know how to analyze, approach and aim.
The 3 “A’s”
Once you aim, there can be no guess work, it’s a matter of practice and with enough practice one takes aim at the targeted mass, squeezes off rounds with controlled accuracy and does micro adjustments to recoil just as they have trained.
I thought the study by Lott and Mustard proved that CC laws actually caused crime rates to decrease..then why has Wichita’s murder rate shot up since CC was legalized?Maybe if guns weren’t so available, so many crazy people wouldn’t have access to them.The media is partly to blame for the carnage at the mall and in every other incident like it. They give so much attention to the perpetrators…the kids that shot up the school in Columbine even had a movie made about their actions…what more incentive does a sick person need to try and become infamous before they take themselves out? And people eat this stuff up…which is all the media needs to make antiheros out of those who would perpetrate a crime like this.
Phantom:
If face to face, I agree. That’s why, if I’m that pistol holder, I pick my spots very carefully; I’m clearly outgunned. Head on? No way. I’d presume that a CC holder would take his shot, if he could, from a direction where the shooter was not aware of him, and when was distracted.
Duh.
A CC holder expects to be better able to defend himself, but he’s not a fool.
You do hear of accidental shootings at gun shows.
Mary:
Correlation/Causation: understand the difference?
As to the media, unfortunately, you’re right. But I don’t have an answer here, except one. Turn it off.
Kansas..pretty sick that we’ve come to a point in our society that one can’t even go shopping and feel safe without carrying a gun.I get the feeling that all you hard core gun lovers would drool at the thought of getting to participate in gun play on the streets.
Mary I think this is entirely true. We make a hero for the counter cultures out there that are grounded in nothing and looking for a grand plan.
Wish the media could see this but with 24/7 time to fill they wear us out with every story they can find.
Mary, I can only speculate about the increase in Wichita’s murder rates, but I suspect it has little to nothing to do with the CC legislation, that is, while there might appear to be some correlation, there is nothing which suggests causation to me.
I don’t watch much TV GMC…but enough Americans do to make it worthwhile for the media to sensationalize these tragedys every chance they get.There is a reason why Jerry Springer has been #1 for years. People just love watching train wrecks.
Mary:
But we don’t legislate based on “feelings,” do we? We legislate (or we should) on evidence.
Is it sad? Yes, but I have to deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it was. And “feeling” it’s bad will not make it better.
The media is partly to blame for the carnage at the mall and in every other incident like it. They give so much attention to the perpetrators…
And people eat this stuff up…which is all the media needs to make antiheros out of those who would perpetrate a crime like this.
Posted by: Mary Caruso
_________
If the Mass Media could be completely shut down, it would make no difference in the cult publicity that deranged people now achieve through the internet. They seek some sort of meaning in life and perceive that fame–or more accurately, infamy–will provide it. While television may once have fed the beast, we are light years beyond that at this point.
GMC,
Do nothing, because the world as it is..NRA supports weapons for war sold retail and your unwillingness to change attitude.
Guns kill and its their fault. The ability to rapid fire with a lot of shots.
Policy can be changed but your not willing to do that.
Argue the pointless CC instead of the real problem.
The guns shouldn’t be sold! There has to be a BAN on certain guns because they can’t be classified as “home protection”
An SKS or AK-47 are weapons for wars!
That step father whose gun and ammo was stolen is likely a paranoid of the government.
You can support ban on some guns and still follow Rights of Second Amendment
Mrage:
Until you can learn to compose a coherant paragraph, I’m gonna pass in responding to you.
Good luck.
Come on GMC, youre smart enough to be able to understand what Mrage said..
So, instead you want to pick on grammatical usage, or lack thereof, rather than addressing the point made by Mrage??
I dont see you do that with Writerdog… and any number of others who tend to do the same thing…
GMC,Don’t worry what I’m saying is confusing to you. My letters to the Eagle editor prove you wrong.
Your obstruction to policy change is clear. You asked for ideas and some were provided.
No one can tell you guns are bad. It’s reasonable for bans on certain guns.
No one can remove you from supporting the NRA.
Time to fix dinner… back later!!Have fun, and play nice now!!
CC and Omaha - I just don’t know. Would a good guy have gotten a shot and taken the guy out - thus saving lives? Or would there have been a crossfire costing more lives?
I don’t know. I just don’t know.
Oh Parkay, did you really think you’d get away with lying yet again? Title x provides family planning counseling and birth CONTROL, the funding for abortion comes ONLY in the event of rape or life of the mother. I know you want to see women die, but fortunately most people are ok with this.
As far as Gardisil, here’s the thing. ALL meds, in the first ten years of release onto the market, have the potential to have side effects that come out unknown prior. Yes, about 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. However, if there is truly a higher incident of miscarriage after Gardisil, then they need to stick a pregnancy category x on it. But remember, you can get the same effects from any other drug released onto the market. I know you hate preventing STD’s, as those skanky women deserve them, but you have to tell the whole truth.
Chas: IS THERE a point in there with Mrage? What there is, is a stream of consciousness sort of “feelings.”
HOWEVER: This once, and only this once, just to make you happy, here goes (but you owe me!):
1) The one thing we know is that bans never work. The only people that obey bans are those who abide by the law anyway; those who will commit crimes with firearms will likewise ignore the firearms laws.
Clinton pushed through the “scary black rifle ban.” It turns out, however, that Clinton became the best saleman of “assault rifles” ever. The value of the rifles exploded upward, and manufacturers modified their products to get around the rather silly restrictions on the ban, changing appearance, but not effecting function at all. End result: MORE “assault rifles,” not less.
And what do you do with the millions of non-compliant weapons currently held by 80-100 million americans? Simply declare them all to be criminals?
Bans are doomed to fail.
2) Distinctions between “weapons of war” and other firearms are meaningless. For example, under the assault weapon ban, an AR-15 was banned, a Mini-14 was not. Why? Tell me the distinction between the two.
Moreover, how do we distinguish between the “weapons of war” and other firearms. A 1911 is a “weapon of war,” as it was designed as a military sidearm, and so served until the 1980s (when the military adopted that piece of crap 9mm Baretta). Nearly all modern hunting rifles are direct descendants of a 98 Mauser, a “weapon of war.” Would you ban those? And as noted above, the AR is a “weapon of war,” the Mini-14 is not, yet you would ban one and not the other. But they are, in function, identical.
Most modern firearms were, at one point in their development, military weapons. No, that’s a smokescreen.
Those who want to ban “weapons of war” use that as a subterfuge to ban, period. I do not trust the motives of those who blame inanimate objects for the acts of criminal individuals.
3) Paranoid of the gov’t?! There is no one more paranoid of the govt than the leftists here, yet many seem to want to ban firearms. Why is that? More important, why is being “paranoid” of the gov’t a bad thing? Frankly, a little healthy paranoia, as long as it is not debilitating, is a very healthy thing. Give human history, what makes gov’ts trustworthy? Gov’ts, historically, are the greatest killers of all.
4) As important as personal defense is, that is not primarily the reason for the 2nd am. The founders understood that gov’t itself was the greatest threat to liberty, and that ultimately, the only real check on the state is an armed populace. It’s not for nothing that tyrants disarm their populations. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed one, a subject. More importantly, my right to life, and the tools to defend it, do not come to me from the gov’t; the predate the US and are inherent and inalienable. The 2nd Am only affirms what human history tells us: Arms are the tools of free men. And we’ll stay that way.
Chas, Mrage, I’ve been through all this before, and you know that. You just want to pretend that somehow I’ve “shyed away” from this debate. You know full well that’s not the case, but again, as Outlander has pointed out, half-truth is stock in trade with the left.
Satisfied?
BTW - Mrage, what I have just written are called “paragraphs.” Read it, learn it, love it.
Well what you have ALSO done is to be completely and totally dishonest there GMC.
You’ve an agenda here. You’d like to use instances like this tragedy to justify you carrying a pistol everywhere all the time.
If you take offense? Well I guess it is on you. But honestly? Are you REALLY that afraid? Or does it “pump ya up” walking around with a gun?
There may be deeper issues at play if so.
See? I’ve lived 40 + years. I can honestly say there is not one single time that I wished I had a gun WITH me.
Oh and not to indict anyone posting here. But I have seen those who now have a conceal carry permit BRAG about flaunting the law as to their guns. So the “all CC people are responsible” doesn’t wash for me.
GMC,
I found a couple of national writers with similar styles as mine. The Eagle has printed each of my Letters to Editor without much change. I’ve had 10, I think.
If the gun lobby actually helped the Government, some bans might work.
You challenge why some guns are banned and similar aren’t. The NRA should point those oddities out.
We care if dangerous tires are manufactured. Why can’t we care dangerous guns are manufactured and sold retail?
It’s a consumer safety issue, must come with a warning label. Must be socially look down upon.
We can ban smoking and you want guns legal in more places. You want the AR-15, M-16, AK-47 and SKS rifle sold.
Why do they have to be sold because you believe government paranoia?
Why gun NUTS, that’s the best explanation, arm themselves against the FEDS! People threatening to shoot if police show up!
I can’t agree with that. I know the Fed attacks some people. But puts hands up and hire a lawyer before thinking shooting the Feds is reasonable!
We can buy hunting rifles that can shoot 200 yards with a scope. We can alter shotguns, pistol stock and sawed off. We can buy pistols. We could defend our home with reasonable guns.
Defending a home with weapons for wars are wrong. Defending against the government someday is the wrong thought.
Like I said, not until people like you see some bans could work, we’re going to continue watching mass killings happen.
The tragic crime in Omaha isn’t about CC making a difference. Its only about the gun and general public shouldn’t have it.
The paranoid of the gov, shouldn’t be armed to shoot them someday!
“1) The one thing we know is that bans never work. The only people that