82 Comments

kevino:

RE: “If just a few of those holiday shoppers in Omaha, Nebraska had been packing heat.”

Sorry, but the Nebraska concealed carry law was crafted to allow cities to preempt the state law, and Omaha did just that. Legal concealed carry in Omaha by licensed citizens is forbidden. Only felons and agents of the State carry weapons.

Dec 7, 2007 - 7:16 am J.F. Wolfington:

While I find it appalling that citizens should have to strap on a “hog-leg” to do their Christmas shopping, the truth seems to be that until our society regains its bearings, we responsible citizens are going to have to maintain civilization on our own. Does that sound like vigilantism? Yeah, I thought so too.

Dec 7, 2007 - 7:23 am Thomas Baker:

The common thread in all of these mass shootings, besides a disenfrachised youth looking for his 15 minutes of fame, is that they all occur in alleged “Gun Free Zones.”

Ever wonder why the Robert Hawkinses of the world never choose the local police station or gun club to go on a shooting rampage?

The reason they choose “Gun Free Zones” is they want to be famous. They want to be somebody…even posthumusly. The way to acheive this goal? Kill a bunch of people and get yourself on the 24 hour news channels. Going to a “Gun Free Zone” increases the odds of a high body count as it decreases the odds of armed resistance.

If that troubled kid had walked into a police station he’d have been dead before he got that rifle out of his coat. If someone as mentally unstable as Mr. Hawkins understands this obvious fact, why don’t liberals?

If businesses want to ban firearms on their property they should face the wrath of the plaintiff’s bar when someone comes in and murders their defenseless patrons.

Dec 7, 2007 - 7:24 am Pixelkiller:

“Dirty Jersey” has outlawed concealed carry permits except for the most rare of reasons. We must depend on the State and local police, or, Tony Soprano to protect us.
A long time ago a man at Quantico who taught shooting at the FBI Adademy told me that if I was really concerned regarding my own safety, I should carry a fire arm and use it if I thought I must because it was always better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6. Good advice!

Dec 7, 2007 - 7:32 am Andrew:

I love gun lovers responses to these tragedies they are so irresponsible. As we have seen in war zones in Iraq people tend to miss when shooting at targets. I am willing to bet that if anyone had the opportunity at this mall to return fire they would probably hit innocent bystanders in the crossfire. The truth is there are a lot of stupid people in America and allowing them to carry a gun will only make them stupider. I for one would not feel safe if I knew every dummy in the bar was packing heat or the guy tailgating me on the highway was armed. You gun idiots are just that. Thanks for making my country look like its full of uncivilized country bumpkins. And newsflash people everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan has guns and how safe is that?

Dec 7, 2007 - 7:36 am Doublestack9:

“Kevino” is not correct - Omaha does not ban concealed carry. It originally did, but before the effective date of LB 454 (CCW law) the Omaha city council repealed it’s ban and made it’s statutes in line with the state law.

Now local stores are free to post “no gun” signs, and the signs must be conspicously displayed. The mall signs are not - it is something like point #3 on a #12 point sign at the mall entrance. I am not aware that the Von Maar entrance is even posted. When the mall opens up again, I will go visit and check.

Dec 7, 2007 - 7:49 am omaha:

I imagine there already were some shoppers packing heat at the mall, don’t you? If it wasn’t the teenage gangsters, it might have been a citizen ignoring the no-guns-allowed signs. Where were those people when this kid opened up? Probably in a different store, a different floor. Six minutes is a pretty short time for heroes to get to where they need to be. I’m all for citizens carrying guns, but I don’t kid myself that it would have been likely to change the outcome at Westroads.

Dec 7, 2007 - 7:54 am jblog:

It’s been said before, but if more guns = more shootings, why is it that massacres at this type always happen in places where guns are banned — schools, churches, businesses, shopping malls — and never places where presumably EVERYONE is armed — police stations, National Guard armories and gun shows?

Simplistic perhaps, but quite demonstrably true.

I have no desire to arm every citizen in the nation — in fact, there are a great number of people out there I would prefer not be armed, for their own safety was well as everyone else’s.

But consider how this latest situation might have been different if a responsible person licensed to carry a handgun had worn his firearm into the mall that day, instead of locking it in his car.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:00 am RobD:

There was once a man who decided he would try a mass killing at a indoor gun range just south of San Francisco. He rented a firearm from the range and then took a hostage and was about to kill all inside the building. The guy behind the counter put a few .45 holes in him and that was the end. Bet you didn’t see that on CBS, NBC etc.

http://www.gunsafe.org/The%20Armed%20Citizen/Gun-shop%20employee.htm

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:09 am Zach:

Most gun control people, when pressed, will eventually say that more police are the answer (though they tend to dislike the police otherwise). When one points out that uniforms can be avoided with some casing and patience, many will then acquiesce to the idea of more plain-clothes police.
Then one can press to the heart of the matter, because the sole difference between more plainclothes cops pretending to shop at a mall and concealed carry is that the former are employees of the state and the latter are free citizens. They then are lying when they say that more guns aren’t the answer. More guns in the hands of trained free citizens isn’t the answer, but in the hands of the state is the answer. Isn’t it a basic tenet of fascism to trust the state more than the citizens?
Pretty revealing, no?

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:10 am Lysander:

I read yesterday a witness account that the first man who was shot saw Hawkins with the rifle and yelled, “Hey! What are you doing! I’m calling 911!” as if the mere threat of a phone call was going to stop someone with an AK.

That someone thought it would says something, but I’m not sure what.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:13 am TomHynes:

I think it was an SKS, not an AK-47.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:15 am Oldsmoblogger:

Governments are protected by Warren v. DC and Gonzales v. Castle Rock. I wonder whether private institutions would be able use those decisions in their defense.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:17 am tyree:

The movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest” led to the emptying of our mental health facilities. I had a student who’s skull was cracked by a crazy homeless man with a steel bar a few years ago. Thank you very much ACLU.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:20 am Techie:

What is truly disturbing is that this sicko (will not use his name) will get his 15 mins of infamy.

Depressed and disturbed? Go on a rampage! Get on the national news, if you survive, get interviewed by Bawbawa Walters in a few years, have protest groups hold rallies about the hardships and problems YOU had growing up, have dozens of Youtube videos dedicated to YOU alone.

No one outside of VT remembers the names of Cho’s victims, he’s the one that gets the national recognition.

It must be so tempting to the weak and sick.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:21 am Yu-Ain Gonnano:

I should point out, the kid didn’t have an AK-47. He had an SKS.

An AK-47 is a machine gun and a true assault rifle. The SKS is a semi-auto rifle and is so far removed from being an assault rifle it wasn’t even subject to the “It kinda sorta looks like an assualt rifle so we’re going to ban it anyway” ban.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:26 am Jan:

Fortunately, we have the example of America’s inner cities to show that greater availability of guns means greater safety, as crime statistics show. The sounds of gun shots going off every night must bring a feeling of security to inner city dwellers, knowing that only the bad guys are getting their due, the good guys don’t miss, and nobody is killed in crossfire. Would that all of America were as safe as, say, New Orleans or Detroit or East St. Louis.

Sorry, but the notion that upright citizens will take out a crazed shooter and save 50 people’s lives is a fantasy. The perpetrators will just come better prepared for assault and will have planned a good defense. The perpetrators always have the element of surprise on their side.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:39 am Gun Trash:

I believe you’re right, it was an SKS and not the AK-47. But that’s a small point as both use the same round, 7.62×39

From my “name” you can guess my viewpoint. For many of us, Heston wasn’t just mouthing a catchy phrase with, “…from my cold, dead hands.” It’s an oath to ourselves and to those we love. We will not go unarmed, ever.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:40 am Richard R:

TomHynes -

It was an SKS, but they are so functionally and visually similar to an AK that I think its reasonable to interchange the names. Kind of like calling a vehicle an SUV when it’s REALLY a “crossover” vehicle. Given the level of understanding among reporters, we’re probably lucky that he didn’t call it a .22 or a shotgun.

There are occasional shootings in police stations. We don’t call them mass killings, we call them suicide by cop.

Andrew, one difference between the good guys (”Gun Lovers”) and bad guys is that gun lovers go to the range and practice. I can put 8 rounds of .45 into a 6×9 rectangle at 25 yards in 5 to 6 seconds, every single time, and it’s an exercise I do once a week. OTOH, I once had the misfortune of facing off against an MS13 gang member when I was unarmed. He held his gun - a Beretta 9mm - sideways. We started with about 5 feet separation, I ran away. He fired 12 times and missed me completely. I doubt he’d ever been to a shooting range in his life.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:44 am Mike:

Andrew’s comments pretty well sum up what seem to be the true feelings of many gun control advocates:

“there are a lot of stupid people in America and allowing them to carry a gun will only make them stupider”

This attitude underlies a lot of what currently passes for liberalism: contempt for the actual written constitution, and for a large portion of the American public. along with the shame these elites feel from the unwelcome association citizenship forces on them

“Thanks for making my country look like its full of uncivilized country bumpkins.”

Surely there is more than a suggestion here of eagerness for a technocratic state that would dispense with 18th century legal relics (the 2nd amendment, the electoral college) and relieve these “bumpkins” of their guns, and their remaining political power. Then judges selected from the best law schools could rule us.

But why do these “liberals” assume such an all powerful state, with a monopoly on arms, would always favor them? Maybe they should read some Roman history.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:51 am buzz:

“I am willing to bet that if anyone had the opportunity at this mall to return fire they would probably hit innocent bystanders in the crossfire.”

How nice you are willing to bet the lives of those killed by the gunman. We KNOW what happens when no one else has a gun, you SPECULATE on what might happen if someone was in the position to return fire, can you provide any examples of what you speculate? I can find all sorts of examples supporting my preference.

“Does that sound like vigilantism? Yeah, I thought so too.”
No it does not. This has always pissed me off. It is NOT vigilantism to protect yourself or others. It never has been.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:04 am James Felix:

Andrew:

Your “argument”, if I am to be so generous as to call it that, lacks any kind of empirical support and is informed entirely by ignorance and predjudice. If what you said was even the least bit true then Florida would be knee deep in innocent blood. The facts are these: no gun control law has ever reduced gun violence and concealed carry laws almost always correlate with a reduction in violent crime.

And your tossing out of Iraq and Afghanistan as though that proves something is patently absurd. Washington DC has a complete gun ban, Zurich has near-universal gun ownership. Which is safer?

I know I’ve wasted my time typing this, because if you could be swayed by reason you wouldn’t believe what you believe in the first place. Maybe it’ll help someone else though.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:12 am Clayton E. Cramer:

It is unfortunate that the gun control fanatics don’t let some real data into their brains occasionally. I run a blog that does nothing but record all news coverage of civilians using guns in self-defense in the United States. There are entries just about every day–sometimes multiple entries per day.

The average American is far more capable and rational with a gun than the gun control advocates want to believe.

Let’s not kid ourselves that the gun ban in the mall made the difference in this case, however. The deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill has been a far larger contributor to this problem.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:16 am newscaper:

The “vigilante” tag annoys me too. It tries to deliberately and dishonestly equate defending yourself or others in the heat of the moment with an after-the-fact lynch mob.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:23 am Mike:

[quote]Fortunately, we have the example of America’s inner cities to show that greater availability of guns means greater safety, as crime statistics show.[/quote]

Jen, I think you ment to say the greater prevelance of gun control, not the greater availability of guns.

Like how gun control has made Chicago and DC such fonts of safety and tranquility.

Guncite has an excellent article on the more guns equal more crime fallacy:

[url]http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html[/url]

[img]http://www.guncite.com/chart6.JPG[/img]

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:25 am Abominable_Hillbilly:

Yu-Ain Gonnano:

I own several AK’s and AK-pattern rifles. None of them are “machine guns”. All are semi-automatic rifles that fire the exact same 7.62×39mm round as the SKS. While the SKS may only be capable of holding ten rounds in stock configuration, it is easily and often modified to hold more. Its lack of a pistol grip is what separates it from the AK in the eyes of the ignorant. This confusion is a classic example of what so many of us find frustrating about so-called gun control. Tactically and ballistically, the SKS and AK are essentially the same rifle, with the differences not being things that your average citizen would be able to use to their advantage. While I agree that the AK can more easily achieve an accelerated rate of fire, the rifles just really aren’t that different.

Andrew:

Gun control has never disarmed a single criminal. Take a look at London. They have a total ban on handguns, and have since 1996. Handgun violence has skyrocketed in the last ten years. People who want guns will find them, and criminals aren’t particularly bothered by the process of the law. That’s why they’re called “criminals”.

Additionally, Andrew, I don’t appreciate your bigoted statement about bumpkins. While I myself am an incurable gun nut who comes from an agrarian background, I’m apparently better educated than you are. You’d do well to read some of the writings of the Framers before you dismiss the carrying of arms by private citizens.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:25 am Flash Gordon:

Andrew says:
The truth is there are a lot of stupid people in America and allowing them to carry a gun will only make them stupider.

Andrew, I will not call you stupid. You may be very intelligent. But I will say you are ignorant. Probably willfully so.

J.F. Wolfington says:

….I find it appalling that citizens should have to strap on a “hog-leg” to do their Christmas shopping,…

Who said they have to do any such thing? But, if the want to, are you going to tell them they cannot? [Assuming, of course, they meet the pre-requisites for a permit.]

Also, a so-called “hog-leg” is not what most permit holders carry.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:27 am Charlie:

Richard R: It was an SKS, but they are so functionally and visually similar to an AK that I think its reasonable to interchange the names.

Uh, no. We can argue that the AK is a descendant of the SKS and that they are functionally similar, but no gunner would mistake an AK for an SKS.

The SKS has a fixed 10 rd mag, underfolder bayonet, cleaning rod, no muzzle break, no hand grip. The AK has a hand grip, muzzle break, and may have a plastic and/or folding stock which the SKS did not.

If the SKS used in this shooting had 2 30rd mags taped together then it was fitted with an aftermarket device to use them. There’s all sorts of aftermarket crud that you can stick on an SKS to make it look kind’a like an AK, but that doesn’t make it an AK

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:40 am Scott:

Saying an SKS is functionally the same as an AK47 because of caliber is like saying my .308 deer rifle is the same as my .308 FN-FAL. The biggest - certainly to the anti-gunners - difference in the 2 (AK/SKS) is that the SKS does not have a detachable, high-cap magazine (unless its been modified). I don’t think the SKS would meet the Clinton/Schumer “assault rifle” definition.

As a competitive shooter and 11 yr military vet, it seems that having folks like me out and about armed would be a good thing.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:40 am Rod:

Re: Mr Steyn’s ‘what-if’ scenario. There’s a reason why military & law-enforcement critters are taught to aim at the center of mass. Shooting someone in the shoulder, someone whom you don’t recognize, is a great way to discover, too late, that you’re dealing with a high-pain-tolerance -left-handed person.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:46 am Yu-Ain Gonnano:

I believe you’re right, it was an SKS and not the AK-47. But that’s a small point as both use the same round, 7.62×39 - Gun Trash

It was an SKS, but they are so functionally and visually similar to an AK that I think its reasonable to interchange the names. - Richard R

Nonsense. Many popular deer rifles use 30-06 or .308 which are even more powerful rounds than the 7.62×39. So ascribing some uniqueness to the round is incorrect.

Secondly, just because two guns use the same round does not make them at all equivalent. The SKS is not functionally the same as an AK, and only bears passing resemblance cosmetically (but again, not so much that it was included in the scary looking weapons ban). The AK is a select fire weapon. It can fire in both semi-auto and full auto capabilities. The SKS can only fire in semi-auto.

AK: one trigger pull = 30 rounds
SKS: one trigger pull = 1 round

This is not a trivial difference.

The SKS is functionally equivalent to many hunting rifles, not to assault rifles. The differences were so vast, that the SKS was not included in the AWB. So yes, I do expect journalists to be able to correctly report such facts.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:50 am DaveP.:

Jan:
You’re exactly right: we have the example of America’s inner cities, where people who are banned by law from owning guns commit illegal acts with illegal guns in cities where guns are banned by law. Obviously, more gun bans are the solution- since they’ve worked so well so far. After all, the mall in question was an area where guns were banned- therefore, everyone was perfectly safe, not so?

And of course the perpetrators will always be more prepared- that’s why American police eschew firearms and body armor themselves. Right?

At the end of the day, Jan, an armed citizen had the chance of doing something. You? Nothing. Not anything.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:54 am SDN:

Jan, of course, refuses to admit that those urban areas she mentions supposedly have the strictest gun control laws. And, of course, thanks to so-called “Saturday Night Special” laws, affordable guns are priced out of reach.

And, of course, as they are proving in Britain, once a guaranteed supply of victims is assured, the 6′ 250lb ex-con with a lead pipe can beat the cr*p out of the women and pensioners and take what he wants. The only equalizer between a 6′ man and a 5′ woman is a gun.

Dec 7, 2007 - 9:59 am Ernst Blofeld:

Actually, several mass shootings have been stopped when a citizen showed up with a personally owned gun. The law school shooting from a couple years ago and a high school shooting come to mind.

Dec 7, 2007 - 10:14 am The Ace:

The truth is there are a lot of stupid people in America and allowing them to carry a gun will only make them stupider. I for one would not feel safe if I knew every dummy in the bar was packing heat

Love to see the leftists holding their countrymen in contempt!

By the way, it’s illegal (at least in gun toting Virginia) to carry a firearm concealed in a bar.

Dec 7, 2007 - 10:18 am The Ace:

Fortunately, we have the example of America’s inner cities to show that greater availability of guns means greater safety, as crime statistics show. The sounds of gun shots going off every night must bring a feeling of security to inner city dwellers, knowing that only the bad guys are getting their due

Wow.
I mean wow, you really don’t know what you’re talking about here.

Here is a hint: DC bans handguns. DC has a high crime rate.
What you’re saying is ignoring the 800LB gorilla in the room.

I leave that to you to figure out what that means.

Dec 7, 2007 - 10:22 am Curly Smith:

In addition to suing the mall, shouldn’t the families also sue the media who has given “fame” to the prior murderers (the murdering punk said he wanted to be “famous”)? I’d suggest they also sue the public school system for failing to teach the difference between “fame” and “infamy” or “famous” and “notorious”.

Why blame the gun? Why not blame the car he drove to the mall? Why not blame the roads that allowed him to drive to the mall? Why not blame the mall for creating a target rich environment? Why not blame the cartridges because an unloaded gun is a club? Why the overwhelming urge to turn me into an unarmed potential victim?

Dec 7, 2007 - 10:34 am Jeff:

Quote:

“…..but in the hands of the state is the answer. Isn’t it a basic tenet of fascism to trust the state more than the citizens?
Pretty revealing, no?” End quote.

Spotted this in the comments on the HuffPo and is applicable here:

“How do you argue with a group of people who believe that we are on a glidepath to a police state, yet want to give the government a monopoly on force. Insanity.”

Yep that about sums it up doesn’t it?

Dec 7, 2007 - 10:40 am jsallison:

Judged by 12, carried by 6. I know which way I’m going.

Dec 7, 2007 - 10:53 am mojo:

There are millions of Americans driving around in 3000lb+ lethal weapons we like to call “automobiles” too. A large percentage of them are morons that have no business behind a wheel (trust me), but that doesn’t create calls to ban the things.

We seem to be able to understand that it’s the DRIVER that’s a danger, not the car. The car is an inanimate object.

Why can’t we understand the same fact about firearms?

Dec 7, 2007 - 11:02 am Peter:

I blame Al Gore. If he’d keep quiet and let the earth warm then that kid wouldn’t been able to hide the rifle inside a sweatshirt. You can’t hide a rifle under a tank top.

Dec 7, 2007 - 11:06 am Adrian:

Mr. Kimball, will you and your heroic and manly (but for some reason critical of Mailer’s machismo) supporters now follow your argument to its logical conclusion, and assert that the children at Columbine and at the Amish school should have been packing a bit of heat for self-defence as well? Gee (as you would say), I bet that would make life a lot more exciting for the teachers on playground duty!

Dec 7, 2007 - 11:25 am Gerogej:

I had already decided to not patronize malls or businesses that are “gun free zones” this holiday season. The incident in Omaha reinforced and confirmed that I was right to do so.

I expect there might be copycats out there.

Businesses and business property owners (including employers) clearly have the right to control access to their property as long as they don’t violate the discrimination laws. So, it is their right to prohibit patrons who are lawfully licensed to carry a firearm from entering their establishments while armed.

It is my right to not patronize them. And frankly, with online shopping, I don’t have to.

Dec 7, 2007 - 11:28 am Chris:

I live in NH, and Steyn’s comments, although flippant, are accurate. His would have been a totally legal shoot.

The criminals know that if someone up here is home during a break-in, there’s a good chance they’ll be armed. That’s one reason our crime rates are low., In Washington DC, the homeowner poses a near-zero threat.

Dec 7, 2007 - 11:41 am Pat:

“We seem to be able to understand that it’s the DRIVER that’s a danger, not the car. The car is an inanimate object. Why can’t we understand the same fact about firearms?”

I think I can answer that. The standard gun-control talking point is that while cars are potentially dangerous, they have many benign uses — whereas guns are designed specifically to kill people.

My response to that is: “Yes, and in some situations that is exactly what you should do. Some people ought to be killed.”

Dec 7, 2007 - 11:51 am PersonFromPorlock:

Andrew: you might be happier in England, where most guns are forbidden to the public and the better sort of person is still decently deferred to.

Dec 7, 2007 - 12:29 pm rightwingprof:

“Thanks for making my country look like its full of uncivilized country bumpkins.”

There is nothing civilized about being unarmed. Stupid, yes. Irresponsible, yes. Dependent, yes. Civilized, no.

Dec 7, 2007 - 12:54 pm The Ace:

Mr. Kimball, will you and your heroic and manly (but for some reason critical of Mailer’s machismo) supporters now follow your argument to its logical conclusion, and assert that the children at Columbine

Really? Uh, how is this “logical” exactly?
Oh, it isn’t.

What has been advocated is allowing teachers (who are adults after all and in the building too) to carry guns.

Thanks for yet again demonstrating the silliness of the modern left.

Dec 7, 2007 - 1:09 pm The Ace:

Mr. Kimball, will you and your heroic and manly (but for some reason critical of Mailer’s machismo) supporters now follow your argument to its logical conclusion, and assert that the children at Columbine

Really? Uh, how is this “logical” exactly?
Oh, it isn’t.

What has been advocated is allowing teachers (who are adults after all and in the building too) to carry guns.

Thanks for yet again demonstrating the silliness of the modern left.

Dec 7, 2007 - 1:10 pm Bill:

Why do I carry a gun? an entire policeman is too heavy.

Dec 7, 2007 - 1:11 pm BlackRing:

Folks, not wanting to get involved other than to say if I were standing in that mall, armed, he would have only gotten off one or two at the most rounds. Unless he shot me first. However, the main reason I write is to politely correct one of the posts: It is a muzzle BRAKE, not a muzzle break. It uses the gas from the shot to act as a brake to the recoil. It does not break the muzzle.

Dec 7, 2007 - 1:22 pm Roger:

I can just imagine all those people huddled behind clothing carts and hiding in changing rooms thinking to themselves, “I’m just so relieved that it is only the crazy guy that has a gun out there.”

Dec 7, 2007 - 1:47 pm Jan:

“Here is a hint: DC bans handguns. DC has a high crime rate.
What you’re saying is ignoring the 800LB gorilla in the room.
I leave that to you to figure out what that means.”

Sure, and many places ban handguns and have a low crime rate, so your attempt at cause & effect doesn’t hold.

But gun control, either pro or con, is not what I’m arguing.

I’m arguing against the idea that armed citizenry will act as a deterrant to other shooters. My point is, look at America’s inner cities where guns are prevalent (despite the handgun bans) and so are the highest murder/crime/shooting rates. I’ve lived in New Orleans, Memphis, & other high crime spots. The prevalence of “armed citizens” there doesn’t deter shootings, it just escalates the urban warfare and makes one more fearful about taking the garbage out at night. Don’t want to get caught in the crossfire, y’know.

Dec 7, 2007 - 1:54 pm Adrian:

Are the teachers not employed by the state, like the police? Are we to allow only THEM to have guns, and not allow children to protect THEMSELVES? Sounds like you are way to the left of me, Acie.

Dec 7, 2007 - 2:34 pm Chris in Australia:

This is the copycat effect in full blast. News journalism has given the kid the idea and offered million-dollar publicity if he will do thi sstupid act.

Newsrooms have guidelines for preventing copycat suicide. It is time they applied them to mass shooters and terrorists. And its time citizens recognised journalism’s contribution in creating these crimes. Clayton Cramer who commented above wrote this up in 1993, and the evidence is way stronger than the evidence for ccw reducing (or increasing) general crime.

Dec 7, 2007 - 2:45 pm The Ace:

y point is, look at America’s inner cities where guns are prevalent (despite the handgun bans) and so are the highest murder/crime/shooting rates.

Unfortunately you didn’t figure it out.

Those are criminals shooting each other or preying on an unarmed citizenry.

Not “armed citizens.” They’re armed criminals.

Can you grasp such a basic point?

Dec 7, 2007 - 2:46 pm Lysander:

“Sure, and many places ban handguns and have a low crime rate”

Really? Name three such places, as there are “plenty” that shouldn’t be too hard.

Dec 7, 2007 - 3:02 pm Mike Puckett:

Adrian,

The only thing you seem adept at arming are sophmoric strawman arguments that do not dignify a serious response.

I do, however, think children should not be allowed to carry handguns in public. Nor the mentally or emotionally derranged.

I sure one of those three catagories includes you, proabally more than one based on the quality, or lack thereof, of your postings.

Dec 7, 2007 - 4:29 pm Akatsukami:

You are failing to distinguish, Jan, between armed citizenry and armed banditry.

Dec 7, 2007 - 4:37 pm Tood:

“If someone as mentally unstable as Mr. Hawkins understands this obvious fact, why don’t liberals? ”

Because ‘leftists’ are even more mentally unstable than Mr. Hawkins. They are pre-programmed to weed themselves out of the gene pool, and drag others along with them. Hence their support for partial-birth abortions, suicide bombings, etc. It is quite Darwinian.

Dec 7, 2007 - 4:38 pm Mark:

Andrew wrote:

The truth is there are a lot of stupid people in America and allowing them to carry a gun will only make them stupider. I for one would not feel safe if I knew every dummy in the bar was packing heat or the guy tailgating me on the highway was armed. You gun idiots are just that. Thanks for making my country look like its full of uncivilized country bumpkins.

Fortunately we have people like Andrew who spew uninformed and baseless opinions while showing contempt for his own country men.

You want to disarm yourself, Andrew? Go ahead. Leave the peaceful gun owners of the world ALONE.

Dec 7, 2007 - 5:28 pm Jan:

“”Sure, and many places ban handguns and have a low crime rate”

Really? Name three such places, as there are “plenty” that shouldn’t be too hard.”

Lysander, you’re right on this. Sorry, was confusing assault gun ban statutes w/ handgun bans. Not much crime w/ assault guns here in my assault-gun-ban state, at least.

“Those are criminals shooting each other” What, that doesn’t count? Like we should forget about the hopeless “armed banditry” spraying bullets at each other and only be concerned about the “armed citizenry”? That concept is immoral.

Besides, what difference does it make if they’re criminals or not. The point still holds: those people have plenty of guns, the guns don’t deter them from shooting at each other. More available guns are not a deterrant to getting shot by someone with a gun.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:01 pm murrayewv:

tyree stated, “The movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest” led to the emptying of our mental health facilities.” No, the government emptied them because there were effective drug treatments newly available and they went to outpatient mental health system. They closed down public hospitals, promised community mental health system and then failed to fund community mental health system. That lead to homeless mentally ill in abundance.

“Although homelessness among the chronically mentally ill is closely linked with deinstitutionalization, it is not the result of deinstitutionalization per se but of the way deinstitutionalization has been carried out. The lack of planning for structured living arrangements and for adequate treatment and rehabilitative services in the community has led to many unforeseen consequences such as homelessness, the tendency for many chronic patients to become drifters, and the shunting of many of the mentally ill into the criminal justice system. it has become clear after two decades of deinstitutionalization that what is needed is a vast expansion of community housing and other services and a whole revamping of the mental health system to meet the needs of the chronically mentally ill for support and stability. In addition, mental health professionals must accept the full extent of the dependency needs of many chronic patients.” http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/9/899

Starting in 1955 though 1980, the resident population in mental hospitals fell from 559,000 to 154,000. The movie, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” sparked no movement to release people. Rather it documented a movement that happened historically with the time the story takes place. It is unfortunate your friend whas whalloped but alas, it had nothing to do with film. The movie took place in the 1960s (filmed in 1975) and the patients were brutalized, committed suicide and lobotomized. No one thought it was anything but fiction, but the institutions were on their way out because they cost too much.

Clearly your friend should have been carrying a gun, because of course no one assaulted who is carrying a gun is ever injured and the gun is never taken away and used on them, especially by the mentally ill.

It is true many gun deaths are from suicide. Are you surprised, given their ready availability and low cost as well as the lack of mental health care for people AND the stigma of having a mental illness? If you go to other countries, there are still suicides but not from guns- and many other methods are interrupted. Interestingly, although there are lots of guns, legal and illegal, in the black community and a high murder rate, there is a lower suicide rate than for white people. So it is white people who should avoid guns if they are feeling suicidal.

As for the cities and gun control, maybe there is something going on with policing in some cities like New York, where the murder rate has fallen to 1960s levels. This is in contrast to Philadelphia and of course Omaha, (which now permits concealed carry) where gun violence rates are going up.

And as for Switzerland being so darned safe, who is giving every Turkish immigrant a gun to protect the country? Switzerland has large numbers of migrant workers, who account for about one-sixth of the country’s labour force. No one- reserved for the well trained and disciplined Swiss. Recently there has been anti-immigration response from the Swiss right wing parties http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/europe/08swiss.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. And the rifles are used, not handguns, which are tightly controlled. http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/The-Swiss-and-their-Guns.htm

Our culture is gun loving. Our people are violent and cruel. We have a lot more crime than other countries, much of it committed with guns and have for centuries. We are angry and fearful and hope lots of guns will make us safe. In the last forty years, gun ownership has skyrocketed as have crime and gun deaths. Over half the households have a gun in them- and yet there are home invasions and people aren’t trained and ready to defend themselves. No one practically speaking will come with ATF agents and collect all our guns. Heck, somewhere in the house I have an old 22 rifle, although I got rid of all the pistols a while ago.

Most murders, including those with guns, are committed by people we know or family members. Jailing people and throwing away the key has not reduced the gun violence- just led to higher and higher rates of incarceration at higher and higher costs.

States with concealed carry get only about 5-6% at best to buy in and carry a gun all the time. And then local shops and restaurants don’t want these gun carrying people on their premises, perhaps feeling they can’t tell if you are friend or foe. Most Americans don’t buy and carry a gun with them. They chose not to have a gun on them at all times since the weapon could discharge and children could play with the gun and be injured. And all those accidental gun discharges make people, especially older ladies and women with children, reluctant to step up and tote a gun in their purse. Just yesterday a woman shot herself in WV cleaning under the bed and she knocked loose her husband’s gun. Oops. And how about those secret service agents who shot themselves at the White hose a few months back. And of course since all these ladies aren’t stepping up, you men need to get the 30 round clips and put them into your weapons and then you can protect us. Who will take over gun duty at the mall, since clearly cops are inadequate, only arriving in 6 minutes and then acting like cowards and not running through a cloud of bullets to take out the gunman. They watched on the cameras to make sure it was safe. You would have gone in and saved them (unless of course the gunman got you first as you noted.)

Some have suggested our violence is due to toxins like lead which are slowly diminishing in our atmosphere. Others believe it is an impoverished environment. Many young children grow up knowing children gunned down by the crossfire over open drug wars. But our country can’t afford drug treatment programs just as we can’t afford mental health care or a good education. So take the initiative and carry a gun. Have it there to protect yourself from the people you are afraid of. I hope it works out for you.

Dec 7, 2007 - 8:31 pm AM Edition:

I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I see a sign that says “Gun-Free Zone”, my brain immediately replaces it with “Instant Massacre: Just Add Psychopath”.

Thank God we country bumpkins still live in our backwaters where we know that an armed response isn’t far off, and we can do our Christmas shopping without fear of a random hail of gunfire.

Dec 7, 2007 - 11:57 pm amr:

“The AK is a select fire weapon. It can fire in both semi-auto and full auto capabilities. The SKS can only fire in semi-auto.” While true, unless illegally modified or the owner has a federal permit, an AK purchased in the US can not fire in full auto when so selected. I doubt if the shooter had a fully automatic weapon, but anything is possible. In an unarmed crowd, no need for suppression fire, so it probably made no difference anyway.

Dec 8, 2007 - 4:20 am Michael D Giles:

“They closed down public hospitals, promised community mental health system and then failed to fund community mental health system.”

Unfortunately, like most liberal schemes they never stopped to consider the citzenry. As in - what communities would be willing to accept mental health facilities? When that thought arose, liberal politicians turned back into simply politicians and declined to commit political suicide by actually voting funds for their community facilities “madness”. Of course there is also the “occasional” case where “activists” will fight to keep even the obviously mentally ill from being committed; even it those situations where the mentally ill’s lives are in danger. Forcibly moving them to shelters during subzero weather for example. I believe they refer to it as “Dying with your rights on”?

Dec 8, 2007 - 4:34 am kevino:

Doublestack9:

Looking for another comment thread and found your correction. Thank you very much.

Dec 8, 2007 - 6:05 am Broadsword:

The AK-47 is not a machine gun. It is a fully-auto capable firearm. If the AK is a ‘machine gun’ then so is the M-16, the M-4 carbine, the fully auto M-1 carbine etc. Machine guns are machine guns. The original ‘assault’ rifle was the “Sturmgewehr 44″, or “Storm Rifle”. See here: http://www.world-war-2.info/weapons/wp_2.php
There are .22’s with semi-auto capacity. Are they assault rifles? There are single shot .22’s tricked out with pistol grips, black stocks, and other scary looks. Are they assault rifles? Too bad the Sturmgewehr 44 wasn’t originally called the Drangewehr 44; we might be talking about Stress rifles.

Dec 8, 2007 - 6:14 am Akatsukami:

“Lysander, you’re right on this. Sorry, was confusing assault gun ban statutes w/ handgun bans. Not much crime w/ assault guns here in my assault-gun-ban state, at least.”

Then please name three states where “assault guns” are not banned, and are widely used in committing crimes.

“Those are criminals shooting each other” What, that doesn’t count? Like we should forget about the hopeless “armed banditry” spraying bullets at each other and only be concerned about the “armed citizenry”? That concept is immoral.”

I am glad to see your explicit concession that the fascist left’s refusal to actually enforce an attempt at banning guns where the possessors will shoot the thugs trying to confiscate them is immoral.

Dec 8, 2007 - 8:15 am Mike Puckett:

“Lysander, you’re right on this. Sorry, was confusing assault gun ban statutes w/ handgun bans. Not much crime w/ assault guns here in my assault-gun-ban state, at least.”

Jan, there isn’t much or any crime with assault weapons in my state either and per capita, we proabally own more than just about anywhere else. If assault weapons caused crime, I would be living in a bloodbath but my state has a very low homicide rate.

In fact, the latest FBI crime stats indicate that assault rifles are used to commit less than 1/2 of one percent of all homicides nationwide peroid!

Jan,

Ever hear correlation does not equal causation?

Dec 8, 2007 - 9:45 am Mike Puckett:

“Most murders, including those with guns, are committed by people we know or family members. Jailing people and throwing away the key has not reduced the gun violence- just led to higher and higher rates of incarceration at higher and higher costs.”

More than half of all homicides in the US are comitted by one convicted felon on another convicted felon.

As retired NYPD Detective Patrick Rogers calls them: TFB Homicides.

The T is for Too, the B is for Bad.

Use your imagination to figure out the F.

The moral of the story is clear. If you are not a Felon and do not associate with Felons, your chances of becoming a statistic decline immensly.

Dec 8, 2007 - 9:52 am Jan:

Hi Akatsukami,

Go to http://www.nola.com and type “AK” in the search box. The results make depressing reading.

While you’re there, click on the link for today’s news about 2 shot Early Saturday in Eastern New Orleans. The comments are typical NOLA mordant humor: Christmas Carols N’Awlins stle — All I Want For Christmas Is A Kevlar Vest; I Saw Mommy Capping Santa Clause.

Dec 8, 2007 - 10:53 am Mar Harrus:

I agree with you that a few armed citizens might have prevented some or all of the murders in Virginia and Nebraska. But I agree with you only if these armed individuals were members of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team or some similarly trained group. If they were average citizens with concealed weapons permits, forget it.

Trading shots with someone who wants to kill you is much different then it is on the firing range. An excellent marksman will panic. This is why police personal carry 9mm automatics with a lot of rounds and soldiers carry a fully automatic assault rifle. Police departments and military experts know that most law enforcement officers and soldiers will put a whole lot of shots in the general direction of the enemy with no regard for accuracy. This is fine when the only ones in front of you are the bad guys, but what if most are innocent shoppers who are between you and the shooter. A lot more the 8 citizens could have been killed in Omaha.

Dec 8, 2007 - 1:31 pm Headspace and Timing v2.0:

Gun control: another barmy and

Gun control: another barmy and irresponsible liberal nostrum

Dec 8, 2007 - 2:22 pm b0b:

Interesting follow-up to the story about the hostage situation at a Santa Clara, CA firing range in 1999.

The ‘victim’ successfully sued the range and the insurance company and was awarded several thousand dollars in damages.

Yes, folks, this guy took hostages, got shot by a smart employee, went to jail, and still sued successfully. It was all out of court too.

This is why I fully support the “Castle Doctrine” laws, and yet another reason that I am moving out of California. Finally.

Dec 8, 2007 - 10:27 pm Akatsukami:

“Go to http://www.nola.com and type “AK” in the search box. The results make depressing reading.”

Indeed they do: despite automatic weapon being banned by both Federal and state law, the banditry apparently routinely ignores those laws…as, of course, ferals are wont to do.

Of course, you haven’t cited any high-crime jurisdictions where “assault guns” (meaning: any firearms whose appearance gives cold sweats) aren’t banned. But thanks for playing; this can only demonstrate to the undecided and uncommitted that guns bans are based nothing more than on their advocates’ ability to generate FUD.

Dec 9, 2007 - 5:52 am Dub_James:

Mar Harrus,

Incorrect. CCW permit holders are far better trained than you realize. The boom in Training academies business over the last 20 years has been made possible by the patronage of mostly civilians in the growing number of CCW States, learning proven techniques for just these types of situations.

Not to mention the fact that the police shoot 5 times more people in error than armed civilians. We’re statistically safer and better with our sidearms.

Want to know why Police switched to high capacity pistols? Because their accuracy was so bad. They had such a low hit rate with service revolvers that it was felt the higher capacity would offset this. It didn’t. Citizens often carry larger caliber pistols than the 9mm, because they are able to get faster, more accurate hits with the bigger caliber.

Soldiers carry fully automatic weapons, but generally use them in semi-auto mode, for two reasons First, full-auto burns up a limited ammunition supply very quickly, and second, you’ll not hit very much using full-auto fire. They call it “spray and pray” for a reason.

Complaints by U.S. troops over the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round are a result of the inability to stop an attacker with a SINGLE shot. They have been instructed to hit each target twice. Hence, they are not using full auto-fire. It’s not the lethal hail of bullets you think it is.

Firearms safety rule Number 4 states; Know your target, know your backstop (often phrased ‘know your target and what’s behind it’). Gun owners and CCW citizens KNOW this rule, as well as the first 3. It’s part of the reason they use expanding ammunition in their weapons, and why they are taught the importance of tactical movement, cover versus concealment, lines of fire, etc.

Mar, please do NOT project your own ignorance of basic firearm facts onto us gun owners and CCW Permit holders. We know better, we have to. We know what we’re doing, even if you might not think so. Look at the gun forums. Look at the newsletters from the training institutions. The dead are mourned, and the events are being analyzed to help future trainees be better prepared. We care enough to risk our own lives when there’s no one else who has the capacity to help. We’re an asset, not a liability.

To carry a weapon is a humbling and heavy responsibility for us, just as it is for our honorable Police and Military personnel. It’s a burden we bear seriously but gladly, we ‘People of the Gun’.

And I would humbly suggest learning some of these facts and applying them to a critical, rational and open minded thought process before commenting on firearms tactical usage or safety matters.

Dec 9, 2007 - 3:06 pm 1charlie2:

Mar Harrus,

Marksmanship and tactics are two different things — don’t conflate them. It’s possible for an excellent marksman to panic. It’s also possible for him/her to react correctly.

And armed civilians — in justified shooting cases (which excludes gang-bangers blasting away) — generally have a significantly better hit ratio than cops.

This is not a slam against cops, since cops often must move into ambiguous and dangerous situations as part of their job, but there is no evidence that civvies do worse than cops. I invite you to post evidence to the contrary. Until then, using “panicked civilians” as an argument against concealed carry is specious.

For 50 bonus points, what is anyone involved in a shootout most likely to do ?

Ready for it ? They will most likely do what they were trained to do. That’s why places like the Lethal Force Institute, Chapman Academy, and others were opened to civilians as well as police.

Cautioning folks that a real shootout is a horrifying experience that is nothing like a movie is justified. Arguing that a shooter has to be in HRT to fight back effectively is ludicrous.

Broadsword,

You are technically correct but are confusing the issue for many civvies. I’d be very happy if civvies understood “full-auto” to be synonymous with “machine gun” since they often take it to mean “a firearm that looks mean.” So let’s keep it simple for them, shall we ?

murrayewv

You argue that the availability of firearms increases suicide, and then talk about other countries ? Are you that dense ? WHO lists the USA as 22.1 / 100000, Sweden as 26.6, Germany as 26.3, Japan as 48.4, and France as 36.6 (http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/). Did you even do a moment’s research ? The presence or absence of a firearm really has very little to do with the complex series of events that leads a person to suicide.

At the last, firearms are neither panacea nor apocalypse. They are tools for violence. For the simpletons, that in and of itself is a reason to ban them, because they conflate “violence” with “bad.”

Sometimes, that’s true.

And sometimes, as I learned a long time ago, the only answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

Dec 9, 2007 - 4:23 pm Jan:

Akatsukami, the Federal assault rifle ban expired in 2004. Louisiana does not ban assault rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban

Dec 9, 2007 - 5:26 pm Dub_James:

Akatsukami, the Federal assault rifle ban expired in 2004. Louisiana does not ban assault rifles.

————————-

So basically 2 shootings (with no deaths) out of a population of, what, 4.2 million?

And these are the supposedly “deadly weapons” it was necessary to ban? What was done here that couldn’t be done with a bolt or lever action rifle?

So few cases proves the idiocy of the ban in the first place.

Dec 9, 2007 - 8:04 pm Akatsukami:

But, of course Jan, you adopt the common gun-grabber tactic of deliberately conflating “assault rifle” (a firearm capable of selective full-auto or semi-auto fire) with “assault weapon” (a made-up term denigrating firearms that gun-grabbers wish to ban).

The unconverted AK-47 is a genuine assault rifle, capable of full-auto fire. The sale, loan, possession, etc. of automatic weapons is illegal in Louisiana.

Dec 10, 2007 - 3:52 am Jakester:

This is so typical, someone goes on a rampage. The gun lovers want more handgun permits and the gun haters want more restrictions. No one bothers to examine their motives. The gun lovers pine for the moment they can legally blast a bad guy, like their Dirty Harry hero. The gun grabbers want people to give up guns and pursue peaceful things. But gun lovers love to spout right wing cliches about how much they love life and liberty when in fact they would truly enjoy a chance to mow down bad guys en masse with a modern gatling gun. And gun haters pine for some love your fellow person we are all human and peace lovers moment. Or we can be a dumbass like Glen Beck and think that a cross or a school prayer would prevent this. Face it, we have become a coarser, more violent group, mainly thanks to the mass media where violence is celebrated.

Dec 11, 2007 - 8:49 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: