Omaha Mall Shooting

[03cavPA]

I'd say the answer is probably in the middle somewhere. I think it is true that the VT shooter might not have gotten as far if a few people in that situation were armed. One of them could have taken him out.

Gun ownership carries a lot of responsibility. It requires training and constant practice to be proficient in the use of that firearm. Personally, I would not allow someone to have a carry permit unless they can demonstrate ongoing proficiency. That should be a big part of the process.

Having said that, how many of those gun carrying students would be skilled enough in the art of an urban firefight to keep from killing others with stray shots? It's all speculation.

The gun control crowd keeps chanting about these incidents. The mall was reported to be a gun free zone and gun control won't matter much to criminals or crazy people. anyway. They don't give a shit about the law.

Bob, you're right, and I apologize for going into the control issue, but it does fit with some of the posts, and it certainly fits with these incidents. Our brothers across the pond will always point out that the control issue would address these problems better. While I'd love to think it would, I doubt it. We have open borders, and a sometimes entirely-too-free society.

I'd be one of the first to agree that the US is a messed up place in some respects, but reality often asserts itself in a vicious and cruel way. We will always have criminals and mentally ill people in our midst. The world contains evil and warped individuals. They are NOT confined to our shores, but we have to deal with the ones who do live here.

The only true answer would be guard towers at every public place, with metal detectors and frequent random pat-downs. I doubt even our nanny state brothers across the pond would like that. (some of this is tongue in cheek; let the reader decide for himself whether or not to take offense.)

[Toksin]

Justify this for me:

Why the fuck would you need to carry a handgun on a day to day basis?

[jon@af]

First and foremost: Students/more people packing is NOT the answer to making sure stuff like this doesn't happen. That's just asking for more trouble. Think about that for a second: How do we combat acts of violence? We arm ourselves to the teeth! NO. You don't.

Now, I think a lot of people are examining the gun issue waaaaaay to closely here. You're placing a lot of the blame on the tool that was used to commit the action and seem to be forgetting that the tool was USED by a person. Forget the gun - what about the hand that held the gun? What about the hand that took the money for the purchase of the gun? Do you blame your pencil because you wrote the wrong answer on a test? Do you blame the nail gun because you fastened down the wrong spot?

After all is said and done, whether it was a gun or a baseball bat or a knife that killed those people, a PERSON was the reason for it.

Am I discounting the fact that this incident should prompt a closer look at gun issues? No. I think this serves as another example of why we should have better background checks performed by trained individuals. But again, this comes down to an issue about the person that the gun is going to and the person who is selling the gun more than the gun itself.

I think that this incident is going to bring up (or should) the issue of what we should be looking for in people that we know have histories of violent depression, and maybe even working out some type of symptoms list of someone who has the potential to become violent based on past and current issues in their personal, social and professional lives. If that brings gun reform then so be it, but as I've said over and over again in this post, we need to focus on the PERSON.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Bob, you're right, and I apologize for going into the control issue, but it does fit with some of the posts, and it certainly fits with these incidents. Our brothers across the pond will always point out that the control issue would address these problems better. While I'd love to think it would, I doubt it. We have open borders, and a sometimes entirely-too-free society.

So much for wishful thinking. I guess once a thread gets derailed you might as well go with the flow.

opcorn:

[03cavPA]

Hey, let's blame it on Kyle. He threw fuel on the fire.


I don't see how it wouldn't progress to the gun control issue, though. These incidents will always rekindle that discussion. I think that suggesting they'll go away with tight gun control is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Psychos and criminals will find a way to do it, regardless. It would have been just as easy to drive a pickup truck full bore into a crowd of people waiting at a bus stop and blowing himself up in the process.

I'll commit to keeping the discussion fairly civil on my end. I don't think we have to take pot shots at each other. (maybe the pun was intended, maybe not)

opcorn:

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by J_Swigz

I think that this incident is going to bring up (or should) the issue of what we should be looking for in people that we know have histories of violent depression, and maybe even working out some type of symptoms list of someone who has the potential to become violent based on past and current issues in their personal, social and professional lives. If that brings gun reform then so be it, but as I've said over and over again in this post, we need to focus on the PERSON.

Yes, we need to look at the person, but in light of how common these high profile serial murders have become in recent years, I think we need to look at a culture that fosters such an environment. Violence is rampant in the media, video games, etc...kids are highly impressionable and whether the nut job NRA right wingers admit it or not, kids ARE influenced by ultra violent media and video games. What teenage boy hasn't played Grand Theft Auto or seen hundreds of movies and TV shows glorifying violence.

United States foreign policy has become highly unilateral and militaristic in recent times, a reflection of our country's attitude towards violence. It shouldn't come as any surprise that these things are happening within our borders, and until cultural attitudes towards violence change, these things will not change.

Gun control has nothing to do with this problem as I see it. And suggesting that arming the population would curb high profile attacks is simply ridiculous. If I knew there was an army of college students packing concealed weapons, I would NEVER go to class. Can you imagine what would happen on college campuses if students were packing regularly, resolving drunken disputes with guns instead of fists? Yeah, great idea.

[blazee]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I've heard the "if everybody had a gun" spiel before, and never once had anybody back it up with even the slightest shred of proof or fact, just speculation - but further to draw a comparison blatantly ignoring all other possible factors and influences - it's just plain retarded.

Lots of examples out there, Kennesaw, Georgia probably being the most well known.

[blazee]

Guns laws vary from state to state, currently Florida has laws that favor gun ownership. Recently laws were passed that makes Concealed weapons permit ownership records exempt from the freedom of information act. This was due to a newspaper writer that thought it would be cool to print the names and addresses of everyone in the state with permits. There was also a new law passed recently that makes it unlawful for anyone, including the state of florida, to maintain a gun registry, and any lists in existance must be destroyed.

For Shotguns and Rifles, you have to be 18. At time of purchase they do a quick backgrouind check and you purchase the gun right then and there. You must be 18 to purcahse the ammo.

For handguns, you have to be 21. At the time of purchase they do a quick background check, then you can pay for the gun, you then have to come back 3 days later to pick it up, unless you have a permit inwhich case you can take possession of it immediately. You have to be 21 to buy handgun ammo.

Private party sells are pretty much unregulated, and IMO need to be cracked down on, Anyone wanting a gun can simply pick up a newspaper and pick one out of the classifieds, go buy it, and there is no record of who they are.

[2strokebloke]

Kennesaw is nothing but hot air. For even though there is a "law" requiring all individuals to be armed, there is not a fine for breaking it, and nobody has even been charged with not upholding it. Further, people can decline to carry guns for many reasons, religion etc.

Comparing statistics, Somerset MA. has slightly fewer people than Kennesaw - a slightly higher violent crime rate, and a slightly lower property crime rate. It has no law requiring individuals to be armed. Roughly same population and crime rates - no similiar law.

Now I'm sure I could find many, many cities where the crime rates are nearly the same as those in Kennesaw, and I could probably find many cities where the crime rates are higher. I think arming every individual is a moot point, since we can obtain exactly the same results in other places without it.

For fun I looked up some places I have lived. Parker Co. No law such as in Kennesaw, much higher population - lower crime rates. In fact basically no violent crime compared to national or Kennesaw levels. There's quite a few places that achieve lower crime rates than Kennesaw, with no such law. It's not weapons, it's other factors.

I bet if you give everybody in Detroit a gun, they're still going to have high crime rates. The arm everybody myth is just a myth. It hasn't (and probably can't) be empirically proven.

[blazee]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Kennesaw is nothing but hot air. For even though there is a "law" requiring all individuals to be armed, there is not a fine for breaking it, and nobody has even been charged with not upholding it. Further, people can decline to carry guns for many reasons, religion etc.

Comparing statistics, Somerset MA. has slightly fewer people than Kennesaw - a slightly higher violent crime rate, and a slightly lower property crime rate. It has no law requiring individuals to be armed. Roughly same population and crime rates - no similiar law.

Now I'm sure I could find many, many cities where the crime rates are nearly the same as those in Kennesaw, and I could probably find many cities where the crime rates are higher. I think arming every individual is a moot point, since we can obtain exactly the same results in other places without it.

For fun I looked up some places I have lived. Parker Co. No law such as in Kennesaw, much higher population - lower crime rates. In fact basically no violent crime compared to national or Kennesaw levels. There's quite a few places that achieve lower crime rates than Kennesaw, with no such law. It's not weapons, it's other factors.

I bet if you give everybody in Detroit a gun, they're still going to have high crime rates. The arm everybody myth is just a myth. It hasn't (and probably can't) be empirically proven.

I find it odd that you mention that there are too many factors to prove it works, but then in the same post compare Kennesaw to other cities with countless other factors and use that as proof it doesn't. You can easily compare Kennesaw to Kennesaw, and look at the crimes rates before and after the law. In which case, the only differing facter is the law, and the result an effect that it caused.

[2strokebloke]

I find it odd that you mention that there are too many factors to prove it works, but then in the same post compare Kennesaw to other cities with countless other factors and use that as proof it doesn't.

On the contrary, I never tried to prove it doesn't work, I only showed that there are other factors than a simple hot air law that come into play regarding crime. I even stated, that if I wanted to be selective, I could find cities without the law that have higher crime rates - and suggest that this law would work for them. Of course, then I'd have to ignore every other factor besides the law.

Basically, if I say "it worked in kennesaw, so it's a sound idea for anywhere else" I'd be saying a Cruise ship would work well as a river barge, because it works well in the ocean. It's a logical fallacy. I can provide examples of cities with lower than national average crime rates all day, which have no law like that in Kennesaw. Or we can take the singular circumstances of Kennesaw, and say that their lower than national average crime rates are directly related to this law (which the thousands of other cities don't have) and thus, this law should work everywhere else. Nobody can honestly make that claim, because there isn't anything to back that claim up with.

As for comparing Kennesaw to Kennesaw, we could do that, but even so it's not so simple. For one crime rates have been falling nationally since the end of the 80s. Probably Kennesaw's demographics, and God knows what else have also been changing in the past 20 years (perhaps an improved police force? tougher sentencing for crimes? and who knows what else).
Then you have to take into account, obviously the people of Kennesaw haven't been using their weapons to stop mall shooters. In fact, I can't find any information to suggest they've actually been using their weapons to stop crime. If the lower crime rate can be linked to the law, it's more probable it has nothing to do with actual gun ownership as it does with the idea that everybody there owns guns (which is a different idea than the "if everybody had a gun, they could stop a mall shooter like this" it's more of a "if the mall shooter thought everybody had a gun, he wouldn't go shooting" - which is kind of a naive thought, considering he was obviously not well mentally, and the vast majority of us don't even need that much incentive to not go around randomly shooting people).
Further, the city only had the idea of this law, as a sort of knee jerk reaction to the total ban of firearms in some other city (I forgot where) - so there's obviously going to be some city pride coming into play in trying to make the law work (that is, it would be embarrassing to the city if they tried to make their point against a firearm ban, by requiring everybody to have a weapon and crime rose). Probably dozens of other factors to think about as well. I'd believe it's probably some combination of all of the above mentioned factors that make up for their decrease in crime rates since the 80s when this law was passed.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Further, the city only had the idea of this law, as a sort of knee jerk reaction to the total ban of firearms in some other city (I forgot where) -

I remember when Kennesaw passed that ordinance. At the time, they did say that it was doubtful anyone would be prosecuted for a violation of the ordinance. They did say that it was pretty much a statement against the Morton Grove, IL ordinance banning handguns in the village. I do not know if the Morton Grove law is still on the books, and I do not know what effect it may have had on crime in Morton Grove.

Gun prohibitions won't stop crime. Mandatory ownership might deter some criminals, at least those who would have a reasonable expectation of getting shot while committing a crime, but it won't stop determined lawbreakers and mentally ill individuals.

People control is what it will take. That means we'd have to more closely monitor and control behavior and remove the "bad machines" from society. Too many of these incidents reveal patterns of behavior that were known beforehand, but close enough attention wasn't paid to the individuals, or civil liberties prohibited those in authority from dealing with it.

How much instability does an individual need to display before the black helicopter whisks him away to the "detention center"? What if the killer incident is his first and last display of mental illness? What if he doesn't use a gun at all, but uses a vehicle to plow through a crowd?

thrasher's point about violent recreational activities, i.e., movies, video games, maybe even paintball tournaments, is well taken. I may not be as far left, and as desirous of nanny state laws and curbs on personal freedoms as some on this list, but I think we can all agree that violent role playing activities can contribute to the problem. I've never thought all the gore flicks and violent movies were such a great thing for kids to watch. As I get older, I think even less of them.

I own guns, and I know how to use them. I also know what happens when the trigger is pulled and the projectile enters living tissue. I've seen lots of human blood and broken bodies (not caused by my actions) and the carnage is real to me. I'm not so sure kids brought up on violent video games and gore-fests in the theaters can say the same.

[Damien]

While the law was only recently passed...well, maybe not recently, seems like it, also in Florida if you feel threatened (and obviously after the act there's proof) you can open fire. OF course there are limitations.

It's just the world and the media. The US is made to look bad, 'cause we're "the best". It's life, let us worry about us. Wanna talk about gun control, let's talk of Africa shall we. Seriously, why aren't we compared to them? Just 'cause we don't admit there's a problem? Bleh...

[BNaylor]

I'm totally surprised no one has raised the issue the shooter used an AK47 assault rifle that was allegedly stolen. Very deadly weapon in the hands of the wrong person even with only semi-automatic capability.

I'd like to see the discussion on this one.

opcorn:

[03cavPA]

Was it an AK-47, or one of those cheap Chinese SKS semi-auto knock offs?

The rabid anti gunners in the mainstream media always seem to "conveniently overlook" some of the technical details, so they can make a better case for their agenda. To be fair, though, most of them honestly wouldn't have the slightest clue what the difference is, nor would they care enough to make that distinction.

The difference is that the SKS models are legal, the full auto AK models generally aren't. It's easy enough to modify the SKS models for full auto, anyway, so I guess it's not an important enough detail to get hung up on.