Mall Shootings Misinformation

[Brain Cramp]

I have repeatedly heard phrases such as "Christmas shoppers gunned down" or "Gunman fired on Christmas shoppers ...". Please stop it. To call the shoppers who were shot "Christmas shoppers" or even "Holiday shoppers" is making an assumption about why they were at the mall. Since the victims' names haven't been released we DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WERE THERE. I can think of a hundred reasons why someone might go to the mall.

Yes, it's true that the mall was busier with shoppers because it's three weeks before Christmas. That's a fact. What if it turns out that one of the victims was at the mall simply walking for exercise? What if another was buying a new outfit for a job interview? What if one of the victims is Jewish and would no more buy a Christmas gift than go to Sunday mass.

Why is everyone characterizing the shoppers when it's not necessary to the story or possibly even true? Could it be that the intent is to scare people who will be going to a mall to shop for Christmas and this will produce more stories on the local level about malls losing revenue and increasing mall safety, etc. Nah. Nobody's thought that far ahead. I think it's just laziness and a mindset that lumps everyone into a single category called "CHRISTMAS."

[Brooklyn]

Agreed. Especially since, at least some of those involved were Von Maur employees. They certainly weren't there holiday/Christmas shopping.

Good post.

[PTP WX]

Agreed. Especially since, at least some of those involved were Von Maur employees. They certainly weren't there holiday/Christmas shopping.

Good post.

I thought WOWT & KETV both did a great job with the coverage. I was glued to MSNBC / CNN / FOX NEWS in the afternoon. My wife used to work at that Von Maur, and a friend still does. We are waiting to hear from her.

The worst thing I saw was FOX NEWS saying "we have called Methodist Hospital, and they have not had any victims as of yet" later, the reporter says, "if you look at a map, Methodist is the closest hospital and they have not had any victims yet" That was just dumb and I changed the channel. I have a friend that works at Methodist, it's a nice hospital, but they aren't getting gunshot victims. UNMC or St. Joe's will get those. Just seemed like a first day in Omaha thing. That Fox reporter could have called Billy Frog's and got the same response, "we haven't had any victims yet, but we could see some anytime."

[Eyegetit]

I tend to be a stickler but ... "Christmas shoppers?" It doesn't seem wrong to say he fired at them. It is highly likely that that is why "some" people were there. To say that "Christmas shoppers" were hit or wounded is going too far till you know more specifics.

[!]

The worst thing I saw was FOX NEWS saying "we have called Methodist Hospital, and they have not had any victims as of yet"
Yet another reason why on-air staff should not be hired on the basis of appearance but rather journalistic ability. This is an example of something you learn by working in local markets for some time: not everything marked as a hospital on a map has a Level 1 trauma center.

[!]

Why is everyone characterizing the shoppers when it's not necessary to the story or possibly even true?

Because it is easier to rely on cliches than it is to be a journalist.

[wxgeek]

I kind of have to disagree here. It's the Christmas shopping season. They were shopping. Whether they were shopping for Christmas or not, they're still shopping during the Christmas (or holiday, if you prefer) shopping season, thus they are, collectively, Christmas shoppers.

[that's life]

Hmmm... interesting argument.

I don't mind using "Holiday Shoppers" because it's on a very personal level- and most people are shopping around this time for the holidays.

My other supporting argument would be the time of year. Right now, it's considered the Holiday season. Therefore, they would be Holiday Shoppers.

In my opinion, asking for them to not define them as holiday shoppers is being a little too picky. If they said Toy shoppers, or even Christmas shoppers could be too cliche only because there's also Chanuka (I know I botched that one: Sorry Moses! I was too lazy to use spell check) and Kwanza, etc.

But HOLIDAY shoppers are OK.

[Obewon]

Six of the nine killed were employees. What's wrong with the old standby:

"Nine people were killed"

[2:30]

And please remember, when reporting this story:

Assault rifles are really perfectly normal and appropriate for hunting.

Especially during the holidays.

[Obewon]

And please remember, when reporting this story:

Assault rifles are really perfectly normal and appropriate for hunting.

Especially during the holidays.

And you please remember when reporting this story that you don't even know what a true assault rifle is. You are simply parroting back what some cop tells you which is true of most of the reporting done in this country. And anything that disputes your unsupportable position you simply choose to ignore as is proven below

Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status

Thursday, December 06, 2007

By John R. Lott, Jr.

The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.

A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.

But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.

When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.

Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.

People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.

The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.

[wx or not]

Yet another reason why on-air staff should not be hired on the basis of appearance but rather journalistic ability.

Agreed! To give the broad brush "Christmas Shoppers" is unfair to persons of differing faiths. Just because the situation "fits" a moniker does not make it correct. Like an episode of Doctor Who, when the Doctor says "Just because it leaves a footprint, that doesn't make it a boot." Journalists today need to search a little more and use proper grammar, proper text, and above all, proper intelligence. It's too easy to go for the simple.

[Clubbeat]

1) Calling the victims Holiday shoppers or Christmas shoppers is the easy way out in this case. yes this was breaking news, and it is the time of year when the bulk of shopping occurs as it relates to Christmas but as it was stated, there were people there who were not shopping for the holiday.

2) Obewon, that articles suggest that we should allow citizens to legally carry concealed firearms. That allowing that to happen in 'gun free zones' would reduce the number of the types of shootings that occur in places like malls, schools etc. O-k, I'll buy that (no pun intended) but what happens (I've stated this in another post on this topic) when the shooter opens fire on innocent shoppers and workers, and legally armed, yet untrained in the use of deadly force in a public situation gun owners begin returning fire to stop the shooter.

Imagine the potential chaos and carnage should an event like that occur.
Who would be liable (cause you know if something like this were to happen, there would be lawsuits flying faster to court than the Concorde).

As I also stated in a previous post, gun laws do little to deter criminals or anyone else from getting a gun. In the U.S., you can get a gun legally or not just about anywhere.

I have no problems with people being responsible gun owners as a gun is a tool like any other that a person may own. However it takes precise and repetitive training to stop an armed person from carrying out such a deadly attack like the Omaha Mall shooting.

[!]

And anything that disputes your unsupportable position you simply choose to ignore .

Look in the mirror.

[Wise Old Producer]

Most of the victims were either wrapping gifts or having gifts wrapped. I guess you can decide whether that makes them "holiday shoppers".

According to Omaha Police: The shooter entered the store on the 2nd floor, immediately went up the central elevator to the third, then started shooting. He carried the gun wrapped in a hooded sweatshirt. His first victim was on the second floor-- he pointed the rifle down the escalator shaft and shot the man below. Store security video indicates that he then started looking for other victims, and found a cluster of people in the customer service/gift wrap area, right beside the children's department. He fired off two rounds (30 shots), before killing himself. At some point, he even intentionally shot a teddy bear. The whole thing took about four minutes. Police say there was never opportunity to interrupt his actions.

[!]

I kind of have to disagree here. It's the Christmas shopping season. They were shopping. Whether they were shopping for Christmas or not, they're still shopping during the Christmas (or holiday, if you prefer) shopping season, thus they are, collectively, Christmas shoppers.

If a crime happens in Temple on Christmas day, and you report on it, do you report that all the Jews there are "Christmas worshippers," because they are worshipping on Christmas?

If a Canadian living in the US has a beer on Independence Day, is he a "Fourth of July reveler?"

When, exactly, does Christmas shopping season occur (it isn't on my calendar)? We ought to know, so if a mall shooting happens one day before or one day after the "season," we won't accidentally include it.

In my opinion, asking for them to not define them as holiday shoppers is being a little too picky.

Why the seasonal adjective at all? "A busy shopping mall," or "a mall full of shoppers" will do.

[Wise Old Producer]

but what happens (I've stated this in another post on this topic) when the shooter opens fire on innocent shoppers and workers, and legally armed, yet untrained in the use of deadly force in a public situation gun owners begin returning fire to stop the shooter.



Responsible concealed carry laws require extensive training and testing before people are allowed to be armed.

My father lives in another state. He's an an upstanding citizen who is fully trained and licensed to carry. When I was talking with him about this last night, and told him how upsetting this was to my children, he reminded me to tell them "If you were with your Grandpa, you wouldn't have to worry. That bad person wouldn't have gotten the chance to shoot that many people". Now, I don't know if my dad is right or not, but I do know that when I was growing up, I always-- always-- always felt safe with my father. I knew that he was armed-- I knew that if anyone ever truly threatened me that Dad would handle it. I also knew that if I ever touched any of his guns that I was in more trouble than I would ever be able to handle. I don't have a weapon myself, but I would feel comfortable arming myself-- simply because I don't ever want to be in a position of not being able to defend myself or my children. I refuse to live in fear of maniacs or criminals. And I'm not naive enough to think it can't happen to me.

Criminals will find a way to get guns whether they are legal or not. Why should I allow them the advantage-- or think that the police will always be there to protect me? They won't. I would at least like to have a level playing field.

[!]

I refuse to live in fear of maniacs or criminals.
I also refuse to live in fear.

And I don't own a firearm.

[Clubbeat]

Responsible concealed carry laws require extensive training and testing before people are allowed to be armed.

My father lives in another state. He's an an upstanding citizen who is fully trained and licensed to carry. When I was talking with him about this last night, and told him how upsetting this was to my children, he reminded me to tell them "If you were with your Grandpa, you wouldn't have to worry. That bad person wouldn't have gotten the chance to shoot that many people". Now, I don't know if my dad is right or not, but I do know that when I was growing up, I always-- always-- always felt safe with my father. I knew that he was armed-- I knew that if anyone ever truly threatened me that Dad would handle it. I also knew that if I ever touched any of his guns that I was in more trouble than I would ever be able to handle. I don't have a weapon myself, but I would feel comfortable arming myself-- simply because I don't ever want to be in a position of not being able to defend myself or my children. I refuse to live in fear of maniacs or criminals. And I'm not naive enough to think it can't happen to me.

Criminals will find a way to get guns whether they are legal or not. Why should I allow them the advantage-- or think that the police will always be there to protect me? They won't. I would at least like to have a level playing field.
I can understand the feeling of being secured when you go out to shop, work, etc., Again, I would bet that there were some people in the mall that day, who are licensed and trained to carry a concealed firearm yet, would they have been trained enough to stop the shooter. And what if they were and did stop this young man from taking lives? What about the after affects? The 'citizen shooter' who responded to a dangerous public situation now faces legally challenges for his or her actions. What if the 'citizen shooter' accidentally hits someone else in the cross fire? Wanna bet that the victim in this case would be suing the 'citizen shooter'.

Again, if you want to own a firearm and carry it legally, by all means it's your right to do so. But unless you've had the type of training a law enforcement officer has and uses on a daily basis more or less, then I do not feel any safer with armed 'citizen shopper' out there than having a trained armed law enforcement officer on duty.

[Obewon]

I can understand the feeling of being secured when you go out to shop, work, etc., Again, I would bet that there were some people in the mall that day, who are licensed and trained to carry a concealed firearm yet, would they have been trained enough to stop the shooter. And what if they were and did stop this young man from taking lives? What about the after affects? The 'citizen shooter' who responded to a dangerous public situation now faces legally challenges for his or her actions. What if the 'citizen shooter' accidentally hits someone else in the cross fire? Wanna bet that the victim in this case would be suing the 'citizen shooter'.

Again, if you want to own a firearm and carry it legally, by all means it's your right to do so. But unless you've had the type of training a law enforcement officer has and uses on a daily basis more or less, then I do not feel any safer with armed 'citizen shopper' out there than having a trained armed law enforcement officer on duty.

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. The point is not that some Rambo wannabe is going to ride to the rescue and be a hero and somehow cause collateral damage. That too, is a canard.

If you actually ask those of us who carry, 99 percent will tell you our only involvement in such a situation would be for saving our own lives or the lives of our loved ones. Personally, I'd be running for cover like everyone else, UNLESS I had no other way out.

The point is that any one of the deceased might be alive today IF they had been allowed to defend themselves and by saving their own life, possibly might have saved the lives of others.

[Wise Old Producer]

1) Calling the victims Holiday shoppers or Christmas shoppers is the easy way out in this case. yes this was breaking news, and it is the time of year when the bulk of shopping occurs as it relates to Christmas but as it was stated, there were people there who were not shopping for the holiday.

2) Obewon, that articles suggest that we should allow citizens to legally carry concealed firearms. That allowing that to happen in 'gun free zones' would reduce the number of the types of shootings that occur in places like malls, schools etc. O-k, I'll buy that (no pun intended) but what happens (I've stated this in another post on this topic) when the shooter opens fire on innocent shoppers and workers, and legally armed, yet untrained in the use of deadly force in a public situation gun owners begin returning fire to stop the shooter.

Imagine the potential chaos and carnage should an event like that occur.
Who would be liable (cause you know if something like this were to happen, there would be lawsuits flying faster to court than the Concorde).

As I also stated in a previous post, gun laws do little to deter criminals or anyone else from getting a gun. In the U.S., you can get a gun legally or not just about anywhere.

I have no problems with people being responsible gun owners as a gun is a tool like any other that a person may own. However it takes precise and repetitive training to stop an armed person from carrying out such a deadly attack like the Omaha Mall shooting.

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. The point is not that some Rambo wannabe is going to ride to the rescue and be a hero and somehow cause collateral damage. That too, is a canard.

If you actually ask those of us who carry, 99 percent will tell you our only involvement in such a situation would be for saving our own lives or the lives of our loved ones. Personally, I'd be running for cover like everyone else, UNLESS I had no other way out.

The point is that any one of the deceased might be alive today IF they had been allowed to defend themselves and by saving their own life, possibly might have saved the lives of others.

What he said.

There might have only been one or two fatalities. Not nine.

[wxgeek]

He fired off two rounds (30 shots),

I think you mean "two clips." A shot and a round are the same thing.

[Clubbeat]

What he said.

There might have only been one or two fatalities. Not nine.

You and a few others like you Obewon, are probably well trained and more important, smart enough to NOT play hero but instead to protect yourselves and those you love unless faced with the situation where you must use deadly force. Again, I get that and respect the fact that there people like
you.

I'm talking about those who legally can carry who've gone through the necessary training in order to carry, yet are one step short of a full deck. Like the young man who wasted so many lives, including his own (where was the intervention before this tragic event happened?) I'm afraid that those among us with concealed to carry permits would see this as an opportunity to act out some sort of fantasy.

[Produce man]

Lord, what a bunch of nitpickers. :rolleyes:

[JoinUsForCake]

Lord, what a bunch of nitpickers. :rolleyes:
Wow. I would think a producer would want to be as factually correct and as specific as could possibly be verified. I guess I missed the wire copy that acknowledged that every person in the mall that day was interviewed and confirmed that they were indeed shopping for Christmas gifts.

[Produce man]

Sorry, I forgot to enable my sarcasm flux capacitor.

[Brain Cramp]

Sorry, I forgot to enable my sarcasm flux capacitor.


You know, Produce Man, your posts almost always piss me off but this one made me laugh out loud. Kudos to you!

Now, stop pissing me off.

[Wise Old Producer]

I think you mean "two clips." A shot and a round are the same thing.

I did. Thanks for the correction.

[Wise Old Producer]

You and a few others like you Obewon, are probably well trained and more important, smart enough to NOT play hero but instead to protect yourselves and those you love unless faced with the situation where you must use deadly force. Again, I get that and respect the fact that there people like
you.

I'm talking about those who legally can carry who've gone through the necessary training in order to carry, yet are one step short of a full deck. Like the young man who wasted so many lives, including his own (where was the intervention before this tragic event happened?) I'm afraid that those among us with concealed to carry permits would see this as an opportunity to act out some sort of fantasy.

I think the odds would be in favor of the good guys.

Loosely paraphrased quote from one of those jammed one of the store's back storerooms with a bunch of other near-victims: "We managed to get back there, but the door didn't lock. We barricaded it the best we could, but started looking around for something we could use as a weapon if he came in. If he had, he could have gotten all of us and we wouldn't have even had a chance".

To your other question--this kid was troubled almost from day one-- in and out of different care situations, but no one described him as outwardly "violent". Three days ago, he was living with some very caring friends who really tried their best to help him as best they could. But he had zero self esteem. After being fired from McDonalds, he wrote in his suicide note/apology to this family: "I'm a piece of s**t, now I'll be famous". In another note, he indicated that he wanted to beat Cho's (VT shooter) high score. Which brings up the whole other issues of how video games may have contributed to this. I'm sure that story is coming too.

Overall, it's a stunningly horrifying situation.

[!]

The point is that any one of the deceased might be alive today IF they had been allowed to defend themselves and by saving their own life, possibly might have saved the lives of others.Problem is, it isn't so easy to assume no one else will try to "ride to the rescue," and even when two Denver cops stopped a restauarant robbery by firing their weapons, people other than the suspect were injured.

And they're professionals.

I don't want to imagine what a well-meaning CCW permit-holder might do in a crowded mall.

[!]

Lord, what a bunch of nitpickers. :rolleyes:Don't you want your newscast to be accurate? That's what we were looking for here.

[Jane Craig]

As it turned out, six of the eight killed were store employees (two shoppers were also killed). While this doesn't change the magnitude of what happened, it does change the nature somewhat. I agree that this story could have been reported much more accurately until some basic facts emerged and were verified. Saying essentially, "Christmas shoppers mowed down" was taking the easy way out and did mischaracterize, albeit in a small way, what happened in Von Maur.

[NewsMom]

The point is that any one of the deceased might be alive today IF they had been allowed to defend themselves and by saving their own life, possibly might have saved the lives of others.[/quote]

I have to credit the PR folks for the NRA: they're really good at spreading the NRA canned message. NRA members have memorized the key talking points, and are always ready to chime in following these kinds of events.

Unfortunately, the facts are quite clear: the guns that are supposed to protect and defend their citizen owners are more likely to be fired accidentally, injuring or killing innocents.

[NewsMom]

(one of these days, I will actually take the 3 minutes to learn how to cut & paste a quote properly..... so sorry).

[Obewon]

The point is that any one of the deceased might be alive today IF they had been allowed to defend themselves and by saving their own life, possibly might have saved the lives of others.

I have to credit the PR folks for the NRA: they're really good at spreading the NRA canned message. NRA members have memorized the key talking points, and are always ready to chime in following these kinds of events.

Unfortunately, the facts are quite clear: the guns that are supposed to protect and defend their citizen owners are more likely to be fired accidentally, injuring or killing innocents.[/QUOTE]

Where do you people come up with crap like this? You accuse us of doing PR and you just make up **** to serve your purpose. Cite your sources and quit living your life off your hormones and emotions and deal in reality. Liberalism really is a disease that erodes brain matter

[PTP WX]

I thought WOWT & KETV both did a great job with the coverage. I was glued to MSNBC / CNN / FOX NEWS in the afternoon. My wife used to work at that Von Maur, and a friend still does. We are waiting to hear from her.


We have talked to our friend, she was not working at Von Maur the day the shooting happened. My wife knew / worked with three of the victims, and while she wasn't "friends" with them, they were co-workers in other departments, she is very saddened by what happened. On the security video of the killer coming into the store, my wife worked just to the right of that door (6 years ago). Anyone that has been in Von Maur has probably seen the Piano player in the center of the store. Strangest thing I have heard was the Piano guy was still playing through the first part of the shooting.

I thought WOWT & KETV both did an excellent job and was very glad I was able to watch the coverage they had on the web. Omaha tv stations really do a great job, and look like much bigger markets than 75.

[Obewon]

This is a letter from an Omaha LEO

From an email from Gabe Suarez;
The letter from a cop on scene.

Out first responders were on call in 6 min. The shooting was done in approx 1 minute. I walked though the grisly murder scene today. I know you have seen some nasty scenes in your time as a copper but this was indescribable.

The piece of **** shooter who shall be eternally burning in Hell as we speak made head shots with his AK-47 on the move at 25 yards made kill shots from the 3rd level to the first and second levels shows that he was tacitically proficient with his weapon system. The weapon was indeed and AK (NOT AN SKS) with 2-30 round mags taped in reverse. Approx 38 rounds fired in 1 min. before the coward sat down in front of customer service put the weapon under his chin and offed himself. The blood collagulation was 1 inch thick.

This jackal did a recon, unarmed, just minutes before he came up the elevator and shot a female in the head kicking off his bloody rampage. He fired in series of 3 and 4 round sequences. All the rounds were parallel to the floor, no wild shooting into the ceiling. Angels must have been watching over the children as many rounds were fired into the children section. He engaged his targets with ruthless efficiency and even made point blank range head shots into a 64 year old male hunched down covering his wife in a corner at customer service. She lived.

The first responders were irrelevant but not because they didn't run to the sounds of the gunfire and put themselves in harms way. We had good men on scene in 6 min. That brings up another issue about our sub par 911 system not getting the call out to us until 2 minutes after the first person called in. IT WAS OVER BY THEN.

I thoroughly believe in the unregulated Militia, they should have handled this problem but we live among Sheep as you know. Too many are too afraid to stand up to the communist, facist gun grabbers that are in positions of powers in our country. We need to have citizens armed and ready to address these types of attacks.

[!]

That brings up another issue about our sub par 911 system not getting the call out to us until 2 minutes after the first person called in. IT WAS OVER BY THEN.
Then they'd better work on fixing the 911 system, because it isn't working correctly.

[!]

We need to have citizens armed and ready to address these types of attacks.Sure, we know.

Hey, what happens when John Q. "Hero" Public pulls out his concealed handgun to stop the mall shooter, and in the process of doing so, hits and wounds an innocent bystander as well?

That injured party's gonna take ol' Johnny to court and clean him out.

[cinehead]

This is a letter from an Omaha LEO

From an email from Gabe Suarez;
The letter from a cop on scene.

Out first responders were on call in 6 min. The shooting was done in approx 1 minute. I walked though the grisly murder scene today. I know you have seen some nasty scenes in your time as a copper but this was indescribable.

The piece of **** shooter who shall be eternally burning in Hell as we speak made head shots with his AK-47 on the move at 25 yards made kill shots from the 3rd level to the first and second levels shows that he was tacitically proficient with his weapon system. The weapon was indeed and AK (NOT AN SKS) with 2-30 round mags taped in reverse. Approx 38 rounds fired in 1 min. before the coward sat down in front of customer service put the weapon under his chin and offed himself. The blood collagulation was 1 inch thick.

This jackal did a recon, unarmed, just minutes before he came up the elevator and shot a female in the head kicking off his bloody rampage. He fired in series of 3 and 4 round sequences. All the rounds were parallel to the floor, no wild shooting into the ceiling. Angels must have been watching over the children as many rounds were fired into the children section. He engaged his targets with ruthless efficiency and even made point blank range head shots into a 64 year old male hunched down covering his wife in a corner at customer service. She lived.

The first responders were irrelevant but not because they didn't run to the sounds of the gunfire and put themselves in harms way. We had good men on scene in 6 min. That brings up another issue about our sub par 911 system not getting the call out to us until 2 minutes after the first person called in. IT WAS OVER BY THEN.

I thoroughly believe in the unregulated Militia, they should have handled this problem but we live among Sheep as you know. Too many are too afraid to stand up to the communist, facist gun grabbers that are in positions of powers in our country. We need to have citizens armed and ready to address these types of attacks.

Okay, here's a question for you. The mall is private property. Even if there were no laws restricting the citizens of Nebraska from carrying weapons, would would the mall and the store have allowed it's employees and customers to carry weapons onto private property?

I'm guessing that any insurance companies would require the store and the mall to prohibit the carrying of weapons into the mall.

[TVMattNYC]

He opened fire on CHRISTMAS SHOPPERS. That much IS true, even if he aimed (and missed) at least TWO people shopping for Christmas gifts.

Whether actual Christmas shoppers were killed is another matter entirely.

[cinehead]

He opened fire on CHRISTMAS SHOPPERS. That much IS true, even if he aimed (and missed) at least TWO people shopping for Christmas gifts.

Whether actual Christmas shoppers were killed is another matter entirely.

Were the store employees he killed also Christmas shoppers?

[Roy Hobbs]

Six of the nine killed were employees. What's wrong with the old standby:

"Nine people were killed"

Or "Nine people were extricated as shoppers de-boarded the mall"

[TVMattNYC]

Were the store employees he killed also Christmas shoppers?

That's not what I'm saying.

Re-read my post.

[Spike]

In another note, he indicated that he wanted to beat Cho's (VT shooter) high score. Which brings up the whole other issues of how video games may have contributed to this. I'm sure that story is coming too.

Yes, because everyone knows this kind of violence all started when Charles Whitman played too many video games.

[cinehead]

That's not what I'm saying.

Re-read my post.

Right. But why word it in a away that's inherently inaccurate?

[Spike]

Right. But why word it in a away that's inherently inaccurate?

I think his point is that it isn't inaccurate. At least some of the victims were Christmas shoppers. Therefore, "Christmas shoppers gunned down" is not inaccurate.

Perhaps it did leave the wrong impression as to the composition of the group of victims among an audience that generally lacks the ability to think critically, but in the grand scheme of things I think you guys are blowing this one way out of proportion.

[Obewon]

Some of you people are really delusional

[east coast producer]

Okay, here's a question for you. The mall is private property. Even if there were no laws restricting the citizens of Nebraska from carrying weapons, would would the mall and the store have allowed it's employees and customers to carry weapons onto private property?

I'm guessing that any insurance companies would require the store and the mall to prohibit the carrying of weapons into the mall.

Nebraska's conceal carry law allows a business to decide whether prohibit anyone entering the business from carrying a weapon by posting a sign at each entrance. Someone who disregards the sign commits a crime. You cannot carry in certain places defined by the law (your common sense places like schools, courthouses, etc.)

If the mall posted on its doors that carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited, all the above debate is moot. If the concealed carrier obeyed the law, he'd have left the weapon secured in his vehicle. I think it's a reasonable *assumption* that the mall had such signs posted.

In respect to other posts about untrained citizen shooters, in order to qualify for a permit that's issued by the state patrol, the applicant must pass a criminal background, mental evaluation, submit to fingerprints and complete an NSP-approved training course, which includes live-fire exercises.

[Obewon]

Nebraska's conceal carry law allows a business to decide whether prohibit anyone entering the business from carrying a weapon by posting a sign at each entrance. Someone who disregards the sign commits a crime. You cannot carry in certain places defined by the law (your common sense places like schools, courthouses, etc.)

If the mall posted on its doors that carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited, all the above debate is moot. If the concealed carrier obeyed the law, he'd have left the weapon secured in his vehicle. I think it's a reasonable *assumption* that the mall had such signs posted.

In respect to other posts about untrained citizen shooters, in order to qualify for a permit that's issued by the state patrol, the applicant must pass a criminal background, mental evaluation, submit to fingerprints and complete an NSP-approved training course, which includes live-fire exercises.

I can't speak to NE law but unfortunately, many states only require the basic NRA safety course which does not require hands on firearms training. Even so,
basic firearms training is way below the training required to engage in a fire fight. Again, the point is not that someone is going to be Rambo and take out the bad guy. The point is that everyone has the right not to die curled into a helpless ball begging for their life. Screw the signs and screw anybody who tries to tell me I have no right to protect myself and my family

[Another side]

"Screw the signs." You'll do what you want ... because you're THAT afraid.

You're the EXACT sort of person those of us against handguns worry about -- the terrified ego-maniac who cares only about himself and will get innocent citizens killed while proving it.

I can't speak to NE law but unfortunately, many states only require the basic NRA safety course which does not require hands on firearms training. Even so,
basic firearms training is way below the training required to engage in a fire fight. Again, the point is not that someone is going to be Rambo and take out the bad guy. The point is that everyone has the right not to die curled into a helpless ball begging for their life. Screw the signs and screw anybody who tries to tell me I have no right to protect myself and my family

[Obewon]

"Screw the signs." You'll do what you want ... because you're THAT afraid.

You're the EXACT sort of person those of us against handguns worry about -- the terrified ego-maniac who cares only about himself and will get innocent citizens killed while proving it.

You are a chicken **** coward to edit my post into something I didn't say. Typical liberal Ass hole coward. Crawl back into your hidy hole in your mama's basement with your seven thousand posts. Be sure and get the dishes done before she gets home sweety

[Another side]

Where did I edit your post? All I did was hit the "reply" button.

[TVMattNYC]

Right. But why word it in a away that's inherently inaccurate?

If only TWO Christmas shoppers were in his general range of fire, then he *fired on Christmas shoppers*.

It's perfectly accurate.

[east coast producer]

I think those nitpicking about "Christmas shoppers" are really beating a dead horse (by the way, the shuttle is scheduled to launch at 3:21pm Eastern on Sunday then the shuttle with dock with the space station and the shuttle will eventually land back on Earth).

The kid, though aiming and taking deliberate shots, was firing indiscriminately. People at the mall were shopping, and it's likely some were shopping for Christmas. This assumption is bolstered by the fact that one of the non-employee victims is reported by the Omaha World-Herald to be shopping for Christmas gifts while on his way back to Lincoln from Iowa on a business trip. The second victim is identified as "shopping." Three others were hit, two are still hospitalized. No word just yet what was in their shopping cart.

Though I'm never pleased to agree with TVMattNYC, whomever is making a fuss about the description is taking it a little bit too far.

[ewink]

I think you mean "two clips." A shot and a round are the same thing.

A clip goes in a woman's hair. A magazine goes in a gun and contains bullets. Clip is no more correct then round.

The worst thing I saw was FOX NEWS saying "we have called Methodist Hospital, and they have not had any victims as of yet" later, the reporter says, "if you look at a map, Methodist is the closest hospital and they have not had any victims yet" That was just dumb and I changed the channel. I have a friend that works at Methodist, it's a nice hospital, but they aren't getting gunshot victims. UNMC or St. Joe's will get those. Just seemed like a first day in Omaha thing. That Fox reporter could have called Billy Frog's and got the same response, "we haven't had any victims yet, but we could see some anytime."

I worked with a reporter who refused to accept the fact that not every patient can go to the nearest hospital. Trauma patients have to go to a trauma center, which is not always the closest.

Does FOX News not have a local affiliate they can find out which hospital is the trauma center from?

[cameragod]

The point is that any one of the deceased might be alive today IF they had been allowed to defend themselves and by saving their own life, possibly might have saved the lives of others.

That is a pointless statement. It amazes me how so many people that support carrying handguns don’t understand the basic limitations or tactics of them. The shooter had a powerful long range weapon as well as the high ground. In a stressful situation popping away at him with a handgun is not going to save anyone… especially when he wasn’t expecting to get out of it alive.

[cinehead]

Nebraska's conceal carry law allows a business to decide whether prohibit anyone entering the business from carrying a weapon by posting a sign at each entrance. Someone who disregards the sign commits a crime. You cannot carry in certain places defined by the law (your common sense places like schools, courthouses, etc.)

If the mall posted on its doors that carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited, all the above debate is moot. If the concealed carrier obeyed the law, he'd have left the weapon secured in his vehicle. I think it's a reasonable *assumption* that the mall had such signs posted.

In respect to other posts about untrained citizen shooters, in order to qualify for a permit that's issued by the state patrol, the applicant must pass a criminal background, mental evaluation, submit to fingerprints and complete an NSP-approved training course, which includes live-fire exercises.


Okay, this is getting way too complicated. I have no idea what the gun laws in Nebraska are. That wasn't my point.

Others were contending that the restrictive laws prevented the victims from protecting themselves. My point was that if any restrictive gun laws were removed, there would still be a good chance that guns wouldn't be allowed in the mall. Maybe they would allow customers to carry concealed weapons, but I doubt it. But I highly doubt that the store would allow it's employees to carry weapons while working.

[cinehead]

If only TWO Christmas shoppers were in his general range of fire, then he *fired on Christmas shoppers*.

It's perfectly accurate.

I don't know why I'm even posting on this subject. I don;t have a horse in this race. I just think that if you say that he fired at Christmas shoppers, maybe it's technically accurate. Why leave out the part he fired at workers too?

[TVMattNYC]

I don't know why I'm even posting on this subject. I don;t have a horse in this race. I just think that if you say that he fired at Christmas shoppers, maybe it's technically accurate. Why leave out the part he fired at workers too?

Because we're not writing up a police report, that's why.

[TVMattNYC]

That is a pointless statement. It amazes me how so many people that support carrying handguns don’t understand the basic limitations or tactics of them. The shooter had a powerful long range weapon as well as the high ground. In a stressful situation popping away at him with a handgun is not going to save anyone… especially when he wasn’t expecting to get out of it alive.

THANK YOU.

Even if people were "allowed" to carry handguns into stores ... is that what the world has come to? That my 86-year-old grandma should be *expected* to pack heat while shopping at the Yarn Barn??

[TVMattNYC]

I worked with a reporter who refused to accept the fact that not every patient can go to the nearest hospital. Trauma patients have to go to a trauma center, which is not always the closest.

Does FOX News not have a local affiliate they can find out which hospital is the trauma center from?

Frankly, I don't think anyone at Fox News is bright enough to realize this.

[Spike]

Even if people were "allowed" to carry handguns into stores ... is that what the world has come to? That my 86-year-old grandma should be *expected* to pack heat while shopping at the Yarn Barn??

That's a huge leap in logic. Just because someone is allowed to do something doesn't mean he's expected to. I am allowed to nail my scrotum to a board, but nobody would expect me to do so just because I can.

[Kace]

How're you gonna defend yourself against a sniper with a nailed scrotum?

[TVMattNYC]

That's a huge leap in logic. Just because someone is allowed to do something doesn't mean he's expected to. I am allowed to nail my scrotum to a board, but nobody would expect me to do so just because I can.

KINKY!

[ewink]

Frankly, I don't think anyone at Fox News is bright enough to realize this.

Fair enough, but my point was that it isn't just FOX News reporters who do that.

[east coast producer]

Okay, this is getting way too complicated. I have no idea what the gun laws in Nebraska are. That wasn't my point.


I didn't mean for my post to be inferred as directed at you. I just intended to provide some background specific to Nebraska and the specific event that happened there since others were commenting that had people been armed, the death toll might have been less. In this instance, it likely would have been illegal for permit holderse to enter the mall and, since they would be presumably law-abdiding, they'd have left it in their vehicle as required by the statute. Others questioned the training of those with permits.

Again, I didn't mean to target you, just provide context to this specific shooting.

[!]

Screw the signs and screw anybody who tries to tell me I have no right to protect myself and my family
Wait, so you're saying, if the law allows businesses to keep you from carrying a weapon inside, you'll break that law and do it anyway?

And you're supposedly the law-abiding gun owner?

[Obewon]

Wait, so you're saying, if the law allows businesses to keep you from carrying a weapon inside, you'll break that law and do it anyway?

And you're supposedly the law-abiding gun owner?

No, I choose not to patronize such establishments. I, and other law abiding gun owners, will always choose to obey the law. That's why we are who we are.

And that's why innocent people will continue to be slaughtered because of insanely stupid ideas of people like you

[!]

No, I choose not to patronize such establishments. I, and other law abiding gun owners, will always choose to obey the law. That's why we are who we are.

And that's why innocent people will continue to be slaughtered because of insanely stupid ideas of people like youDidn't you just say on the other thread that resorting to personal attacks--like calling people stupid--means you've run out of actual ideas?

"Those of you who continue to take personal shots only reinforce the fact that your position on this issue is untenable as it is on most other issues," is how you put it.