At least *9* Shot Dead at Omaha Mall

reply to post by Areal51


You can't be serious? Well, maybe you can be. I'll tell you right now that reasoning is based in ignorance. Ignorance about the average firearms enthusiasts training, ignorance about the type and number of people even staunch gun-folk who carry for protection, ignorance about reaction time and the multiple factors that must be considered before an engagement ..

Ignorance on all sides.

If your scenario were true we'd have cases of undercovers being blown away by unfamiliar cops and even citizens who have successfully used a firearm to stop an attacker being shot by other citizens or cops. There is no record of that happening.

The closest example I can come up with is when those underconvers served a no-knock search warrant on the home of a 90 something year old woman in Georgia who understandingly began firing upon the intruders to defend herself and was subsequently killed by the no-uniform cops (what great training the cops have, huh?). Later we find out that the warrant was for the wrong address.

So, no. Your scenario is unlikely to the point of impossible.

reply to post by Areal51


You must not know anyone with a CCW. In Missouri a permit is granted after proper training has been completed. Part of that training is to know your hostiles. Just because you don't think you would be competent enough to properly engage doesn't mean everyone else isn't.

Can you produce any reports of people who have stood up to homicidal maniacs have in turn been shot by other defenders of the people? Because I can produce a few where the lunatic was overwhelmed by armed civilians who had no problem figuring out who the bad guy was. One was even in a shopping mall one city over.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But the type of person who takes on the responsibility of carrying a weapon is not your average idiot. Obviously gun control advocates can't grasp this concept because they however are. But I would much rather have even the most incompetent of heroes with a gun tucked in his belt standing beside me than nothing but air between me and some nut shooting at Christmas shoppers.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


There have been cases where undercover cops have killed innocent civilians! Innocents reaching for their wallets. Innocents carrying car keys. Innocents trying to get away in their vehicles from undercover cops because the innocents didn't know that they were fleeing cops who were undercover, and the cops didn't know that they were chasing innocents. All of the scenarios are represented by cases in New York City, NY. Knowing this, I'm pretty sure that I'm not off base with my original surmise.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by mad scientist

 

Wow hitting me up with "you have a small penis"

C'mon mods this guy needs applause for sure!

Maybe you can be a "Subject Matter Expert" on my genitalia?

I second that. If I go off name calling I'm sure I would hear about it in no time. Equating a person's belief to protect themselves with a gun to a small penis is childish and not appropriate for this board. Equating his use of this comparison to his level of intelligence would be more appropriate..

reply to post by apc


My point is not that there wouldn't be civilians who would know how to respond to a situation such as presented in the OP. My point is that not every civilian with a permit would respond favorably to that situation. If cops can become disoriented on a street where only they and the supposed suspects are present on a street in broad daylight or in the shadows of the night, then I think it is very feasible that gun toting citizens would get confused in a shopping mall full of Christmas shoppers. That one idiot was also about with the intention of killing innocents does not preclude other idiots or people prone to overreact under stress from also being present.

My issue is not about gun control. My issue is that since I have read over and over how trained professionals -- security, law enforcement, and military -- who are working together as a team have made fatal mistakes involving innocents, then I'm reasonably sure that armed civilians who do not make up an organized strike force of some kind are also likely to also make those same kinds of mistakes. I don't know how many times I've heard from gun enthusiasts that they would shoot first and ask questions later.










[edit on 7-12-2007 by Areal51]

reply to post by Areal51


I think the stronger argument is about deterrance. These people gravitate to 'soft' targets. Places where they know that they will be the only one armed. If a policy existed where any number of 'civilians' could be carrying a concealed weapon, the shooter would be less likely to go there simply because he'd be at-risk of not completing his 'mission'.

They reported that the shooter cased the mall. Clearly, it wasn't to plan an escape route --- he had no intention of escaping. But I'm sure he wanted to determine where he needed to be to do the most damage and with the least likely interference of security.

reply to post by jtma508


The argument of deterrence is a good one, I agree. However, this country has sustained terrorist attacks despite the amount of lethal force at the ready. In Iraq civilians have strapped bombs to their chests and penetrated heavily fortified areas that ended up sustaining great loss of life. It's not that hard to imagine... Well, you know what I mean. What I'm saying in THIS argument, here with you, is that someone determined to kill will do what's necessary regardless of soft or hard targets. It won't matter whether folks are armed or not. Whether the target is civilian, law enforcement, or military. You know, I hate even writing this. It makes me sick to even type the words, yet for all I see in the world today there is no effective deterrence other than taking care of problems before they start. So hyper-surveillance and information gathering, or a more readily and heavily armed citizenry are not the answer because those are measures that treat symptoms, not causes. Though such measures might make people feel safer. Unfortunately, the evil that lurks in men's hearts and minds is incredibly difficult to detect. Especially the hearts and minds of those who operate alone.

reply to post by Areal51

The concern you raise is legitimate, but negligible. So far it has been a non-issue what-if as I have yet to hear of an incident where dutiful citizens targeted eachother instead of the perp. In the end such a possibility falls into the "that's just the way it is" category. It's for this reason that CCW permits are not given out like drivers licenses.

reply to post by Areal51


Separate butting-in reply... Deterrence is everything. It's why we have nukes. It's why no country with nukes has ever been invaded (there's that spat between the Russians and the Chinese, but that discussion probably belongs in Skunk Works. )

Ask any "retired" home burglars what they fear. It's not alarms, cops, or dogs. It's a homeowner with a gun just waiting for an excuse to blast someone. The same applies to people on the street. Fact is in locales that have concealed carry, crime is down.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by apc]

reply to post by apc


Of course, it's just speculation. That's clear. What's also clear is that highly trained law enforcement and military have made mistakes. Highly organized personnel. Now, I know I'm repeating myself, but, negligible evidence or not, unorganized and armed CCW citizens carries a higher likelihood of making those same mistakes that the highly trained and highly organized professionals have made. Especially in scenario described in the OP. I could write up a hypothetical but I don't think it's necessary in order to understand what I'm saying. But just think about how profiling and stereotyping plays a role with the professionals. If organized trained professionals can cross their wires, so can unorganized CCW civilians.

reply to post by apc


I'm aware of the strategy of deterrence scenario between nuclear armed nations and especially the Cold War. That's why I agreed that deterrence is a good argument. But, as I said, that doesn't stop terrorists. They operate on an entirely different equation.

I should split this into two replies for the sake of consistency.

For the first, I agree, but I still think that's "just the way it is." I would much rather accept that risk as with anything else, than the alternative.

For the second, I also agree, but "terrorist" attacks are a clear minority. Every day street crime is far more common, and is therefore where the focus should be in prevention through deterrence.

reply to post by apc


Good points. I would just say that in regards to your second point, I don't consider what happened in Omaha to be everyday street crime. That was done by an individual determined to kill people and himself. That's why I bring up the terrorist scenario. Such individuals are going to do what they are going to do no matter what. I do agree that some lives could have been saved if CCW civilians were present and responded appropriately. However, I'm not agreeing that an appropriate and restrained CCW civilian response would have been guaranteed. Three level mall, holiday season, shoppers everywhere. Just a whole lot that could go wrong despite the best intentions.

Whilst I am sure such events will be used to remove guns from American citizens as many have said before the criminals will still get hold of them.

And Rock if your going to quote stats at least get them right, using violent assults in Scotland and comparing it to American deaths by guns is ridiculess and also completely misleading.

US deaths by firearms 0.0279271 per thousand people
UK deaths ditto 0.00102579 per thousand people

home.peoplepc.com.../475781d0_3ca6_1552620071206-326311962
But he clearly planned ahead, walking through the store, exiting, then returning a few minutes later with a gun concealed in a balled-up sweat shirt he was carrying, authorities said.

Can anyone explain to me how you hide a AK-47 knock-off in a "balled-up" sweatshirt?

Very, very carefully.

I dunno I can't imagine it'd be that difficult. It's pretty easy to hide things in plain sight just by breaking up the outline. As long as it doesn't get attention, noone notices. Just stroll along looking like you're doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing. Nothing out of place. Don't mind me. Just passing through.

reply to post by magicmushroom


....doubtful this will be used to remove guns. The 'assault weapons' ban that expired in 2004 is 'the problem' to some. Obviously, most of Congress didn't give a hoot; but now we have modern-SSRI-"depressed" kids on the rampage w/ semi-auto gats, it's pretty awful.

The drugs are linked to suicidal impulses, the FDA should be held responsible for any of these killing where the kids are using their toxic waste.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by anhinga]

Antidepressants already carry a warning that there is an increased risk of suicidal thoughts or attempted suicide for young people on the medication. That doesn't make them "toxic waste." Clinical depression is a legitimate neurochemical imbalance often with a genetic component. If medical negligence is anywhere, it's with the prescribing doctor who failed to recognize the coming storm. This guy either succeeded in hiding his thoughts from a professional trained to read people like a book, or the doctor failed.

At Virginia Tech, the doctor(s) failed.

www.omaha.com...
--At 1:42 p.m. Wednesday, 911 operators received the first call about shots fired at Von Maur, Warren said. The first Omaha police officers were dispatched two minutes later and arrived at 1:48 p.m. Warren said the two minutes were used to verify the address and callers' information, which is normal procedure.

[Comment: Phew! That was a close one! If they had been dispatched immediately they could have been confronted by the living gunman! Luckily, they got there just as he died.
Apparently frantic 911 calls falsely reporting a gunman firing at the mall are a regular occurence in Omaha.]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by starviego]

This is getting better and better:


AP 12-7-07
Police did not release video of the shooting, but released a still image from the tape that showed Hawkins with his sleeves rolled up, aiming the AK-47 to fire in front of a store mannequin. The photos appear to contradict earlier reports that the gunman had a military-style haircut and entered the mall wearing a camouflage vest.

[...uh.... two shooters?]


"I've just snapped" Hawkins wrote in his suicide note.

[Well, that explains everything. No need to question further.]


(Kevin)Harrington, 45, said he told police in Bellevue about a month ago that one of Hawkins' friends offered to sell Valium to his 13-year-old son. Harrington said he also told police that Hawkins had previously shot at a car during a drug deal gone bad. "We told them about the drugs, we told them about the guns, and nothing was done," Harrington said.

Bellevue police said the house where Hawkins lived is in an unincorporated part of the city and not in their jurisdiction. Police Chief John Stacey would not talk about Kevin Harrington's complaint, but said normally officers pass complaints from that neighborhood onto the Sarpy County Sheriff. Sheriff's officials said they never received the complaint.

[Pass that buck! Oh yeah, you can bet the cops knew all about this guy.]