<p>No ever said rights were without cost. That is a tragic story.</p>
<p>Simba, the counter to that is that the shooting took place in a “gun free” zone. There are more than 200 million guns in the United States. A suicidal person looking to inflict as much death as possible (probably) doesn’t care about gun control laws. It’s extremely unfortunate that this person wanted to cause such pain and suffering.</p>
<p>I think the Utah mall shooting showed an important element of this discussion. The mall was, in all likelihood, a gun free zone. The gunman in Omaha didn’t care about that. In Utah, it was the same scenario, only the gunman had handguns instead of a rifle. The gunman was pinned down by an off-duty police officer carrying his service weapon. The gist of this is that a person in street clothes with a concealed handgun interdicted a gunman successfully. I think gun free zones are a bad idea. That said, there needs to be a complete and thorough investigation of this to find out what exactly happened and why. It’s just plain tragic.</p>
<p>“There are more than 200 million guns in the United States.”</p>
<p>so how can we make it to 2 million? any bright ideas?</p>
<p>Imagine how many of these increasing numbers of tragedies could be averted, however, if the US had reasonable gun control.</p>
<p>As long as any unstable bozo can get a gun, an ordinary trip to the mall can turn tragic.</p>
<p>depressed young man
kicked out of home
fired from job
lost girlfriend
seen as suicidal
due in court for alcohol related charges
felony drug conviction
and is walking around with an Assualt Rifle</p>
<p>and the idea of, gee just thought he was going hunting</p>
<p>and he left a suicide not</p>
<p>what scares me is the casualness of people seeing someone walking around with an assualt rifle- is that how your shot deer, with an assualt rifle I guess</p>
<p>if people took weapons as deadly seriously as they took their cars,this would not have happened</p>
<p>every warning sign was there, for a suicide- even without the note, but hey, depressed kid in crisis with a weapon…what are people thinking</p>
<p>Please let me know when you want to discuss more serious problems like deaths from auto accidents or alcohol. Neither of those involves specifically articulated rights.</p>
<p>A28 - the right of the people to drink and drive and kill other people.</p>
<p>While tragic, this event is minuscule in comparison to the slaughter from autos and the drink. </p>
<p>Displaying selective moral outrage will not change A2.</p>
<p>Comparing weapons to cars is a bad comparison, P2N, as it was ten pages or so ago, when someone else brought up that old canard.</p>
<p>Sure, we can go back to the horse and buggy, but it will be tough in this day and age, when modern life requires people to be able to travel. Hey, I am not a fan of the modern sprawl, but it seems to be here to stay, and thus, so are cars. Could we have more fuel efficient cars? Sure, but we absolutely are a society that relies on the ability to transport ourselves.</p>
<p>On the other hand, doing away with public ownership of handguns would absolutely not turn back the hands of time, since the use of a gun is not required (except by law enforcement and other folks who would certainly still be allowed use) in every day life to get to work, live in a modern society.</p>
<p>The drunks who drive should be locked up, one and all. Complain about the liquor laws, if you like, but this is not a car vs gun issue. Those are apples and oranges, and let’s keep to the facts.</p>
<p>“As long as any unstable bozo can get a gun, an ordinary trip to the mall can turn tragic.”</p>
<p>According to CNN, he stole the weapon from his stepfather’s home. As with many crimes, the criminal possessed the gun illegally and acquired in a way that background checks and waiting periods would not have prevented. Given the shooter’s premeditation, had the AWB still been in place and the possession of the AK-47 been prevented, I think it’s likely that he would have used a semiautomatic hunting rifle. The only difference during the shootings would have been his need to reload more frequently. </p>
<p>Allmusic, what specific gun control measure would have “averted” this tragedy?</p>
<p>Not apples vs oranges at all in my view. </p>
<p>Both involve minute by minute decisions by mere people who sometimes choose to harm others with whatever weapon or tool they want. We all know that if someone else was armed nearby they could have stopped the shooter in this case.</p>
<p>The fact is we will never prevent tragedy by limiting rights.</p>
<p>Few people really are killed with firearms by comparison. Those that are typically belong to criminal elements and they get what they deserve.</p>
<p>What I find interesting is that certain very preventable human carnage happens every day in the U.S. by the hundreds and perhaps thousands, yet no one says a word or types a post. We have simply thrown up our hands and said, “we just love our cars too much”. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve driven by the pulped remains of human beings in shredded steel coffins to and from work, yet no one really cares.</p>
<p>Just let one nut case out with a gun and the ink flows and the electrons zip, “why we should ban guns! The nerve of those NRA Nazis!”</p>
<p>For what particular reason did the stepfather need a gun? Had that gun not been available to steal from the stepfather’s home, the tragedy would have been avoided completely.</p>
<p>On edit, from crosspost with P2N…I care. Honestly I do. I have no particular love for the automobile, and take public transportation or walk most days. We lived for a decade with one car. I am scared ^Y$&* about DUI deaths. So I would be the first in line of those who would like to do away with the American love affair with the auto…but people won’t even give up their gross gas guzzling Tahoes and Suburbans…which would be step one!</p>
<p>For whatever lawful reason he wanted. That would be none of your business. It’s a right to have one, not a privilege for which he needed permission or justification.</p>
<p>I was answering Ninja;s question about what would have prevented the tragedy.</p>
<p>No gun…no tragedy.</p>
<p>Unavailable how? By banning rifles? I don’t know what the stepfather had in mind but I know numerous people who own AK’s to target shoot. I don’t believe US law has any stipulation about owning a firearm for X or Y purpose. If such a law DID exist, the stepfather could have simply said “hunting” or “home defense.”</p>
<p>What you’re pointing at is the personal decision to own a firearm. We’ll find out in a few months if that’s what the second amendment really means.</p>
<p>The easier the purchase access (doesn’t apply in the Omaha case), the more firearm deaths there will be; this is simply the price we pay for having the right to obtain firearms. If enough people don’t want to pay this price, the laws/constitution can be changed to reduce purchase access, and a generation later we might see fewer deaths, or it may already be too late to do anything meaningful about it, and we’ll simply experience continuing mass murders. Either way, there are now so many guns available that such mass murders will continue for a long time.</p>
<p>[SKS</a> Rifle](<a href=“http://www.hk94.com/sks-rifle.php]SKS”>http://www.hk94.com/sks-rifle.php)</p>
<p>how did he get the bullets? where they locked up?</p>
<p>[Brady</a> Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence](<a href=“http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ne#cap]Brady”>http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ne#cap)</p>
<p>
Anyone who was wondering what I meant by “adolescent hero fantasy” in my earlier posts can simply refer to this quote. Gun nuts actually believe stuff like this; it’s actually kind of cute in a horrifying sort of way.</p>
<p>as for ‘what the second amendment meant’ do some history reading, it Doesn’t mean when the NRA wants you to believe</p>
<p>and if that father had the bullets with the gun, wow, that’s smart</p>
<p>and the mom, what was she thinking, if she knew the gun was most likely taken, and this was a disturbed young man, why did she call NO ONE</p>
<p>eh, he is caring around a big ole rifle, he is depressed, lost his job, may end up in jail next week, but let him just wander around with an assult rifle- lets not gee, take the gun away…ask about it…</p>
<p>sorry if my 19 yo son came into my home with a gun, I would ask a few questions…gee…</p>
<p>so many signs, so much warning, so many signals, but all ignored</p>
<p>oh yes, he was on medication, but not seeing a therapist</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… And you actually believe this never happens. I’m glad you think that being willing to protect yourself or others is “cute” (although I doubt you’d call it that if you were in such a situation) Do you remember the mall shooting in Utah in February? It was stopped by an armed off-duty officer. </p>
<p>Or how about the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law, where two law students ran back to their cars as a gunman was moving through their school, retrieved their firearms and engaged the shooter from two sides, forcing him to surrender. Man, thats just so cute and cuddly :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Maybe they believe it because it has happened in the past. While it is hard to find it in the media which doesn’t like to go against their prescribed script, when the gunman who killed several people in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law was apprehended, it was by two students who used their personal guns that they had in their vehicles.</p>
<p>Cross-posted with Icarus</p>
<p>Vossron, I sincerely suggest you look up the DOJ statistics I posted a link to earlier in this thread. The majority of guns (approximately 80% if I’m remembering correctly) come from friends/family (as in the Omaha shooting) and street sellers. Additional gun legislation that does not address those avenues is unlikely to stop future crimes.</p>
<p>If it’s true that the gunman used an SKS, it’s an important distinction. The SKS is not banned under the AWB passed in the early 1990s because it does not have a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or grenade launcher (not kidding.). I have yet to hear described a piece of gun legislation that would have prevented this massacre.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, the offender was not a legal minor or a child. Such a law would not have applied. For a weapon to be used for home defense, it makes sense that the weapon be stored loaded or with ammunition nearby. A premeditated, suicidal, homicidal person is not going to be deterred by a locked ammo drawer. He could have walked into a gun shop and purchased a magazine and ammunition.</p>
<p>Kluge…an off-duty police officer carrying a concealed weapon in plain clothes is roughly comparable to a civilian, if the civilian is competent in the use of that firearm. I wonder if the officer was having an adolescent hero fantasy at the time. The officer was out of his jurisdiction at the time on a date and local police did not know he was a cop. He was not shot by police. Of course, criminals are going to be the ones who disobey the gun-free zone rules anyway, so your run-of-the-mill, law-abiding concealed carry permit holder would not have carried into the mall. As the Omaha police have noted, there was simply not enough time for police and mall security to respond to this.</p>
<p>[Police:</a> Off-Duty Cop Saved Lives In Mall, Salt Lake City Police Say Officer Prevented Gunman Who Fatally Shot 5 From Killing More - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml]Police:”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml)</p>
<p>In my county, Mr. Myrick would have been convicted of a felony for possessing a firearm inside a school zone. I wonder if his adolescent hero fantasy motive was kicking in at the time.</p>
<p>[Town</a> tries to cope with school shooting](<a href=“http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm]Town”>http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm)</p>