A Tale of Two Malls: Omaha and Salt Lake City

Andy 6222

Inactive
A Tale of Two Malls -- Salt Lake City and Omaha

Omaha, Nebraska - December 5, 2007

I'm going to keep this real simple. Obviously today a piece of garbage seeking to make a sadistic name for himself shot up a mall in Omaha, Nebraska, killing nine and wounding others. He was able to basically fire his weapon with impunity until the cops arrived. No one in the mall could stop this guy, especially not "security", after all, what are people going to do in a "gun-free-zone" like this mall, hit him with shopping bags as he shoots them...we all know the answer. So he got to kill anyone he wanted and was able to achieve "his last wish" in life.

Trolley Square (Mall), Salt Lake City, Utah --

On February 12, 2007, a different piece of garbage began a deadly shooting in Trolley Square, resulting in the deaths of five bystanders and the shooter himself, as well as the wounding of at least four others. He carried both a shotgun and a handgun, as well as a backpack full of ammunition, which he intended to use until the cops showed up or he ran out of ammo, which ever was going to happen first.

Unfortunately for this maniac, an ARMED off-duty cop was at a restaurant at the time of he chose to do his rampage and was forced into a shoot out with this off-duty officer. Clearly, this shoot out was only made possible by the presence of someone else, who isn't a maniac, having a gun on his person.

The gunman's rampage was stopped after trading shots with the officer Kenneth Hammond, which drastically limited the casualty count.

The conclusion of this is simple, if the political left, Democrats in general, would allow the honest citizens of our nation to carry firearms with them, they can stop these incidents or at least limit the death toll.

So, thank your local gun-control, aka gun prohibitionist politician for making the laws that allow the maniacs of the world to become the "Kings" of the places they plan to shoot up because the rest of us are disarmed and at their mercy.

All its going to take to stop these mass rampage shootings in the future is two things. First off, the media needs to stop giving these maniacs the after the fact attention they wanted, because it encourages others who would "copy-cat" them, to do the same. The other thing we need, is a couple of these perps getting smoked before they can kill others. This will set the example to the next maniac that their deadly goals may not be accomplished and there is a good chance they'll just kill themselves.

Pardon the pun, but with how these shootings have hit critical mass, its worth a shot to allow honest citizens to carry guns, even into malls....

Article by Jazz Richmond / allrightmagazine
 
One thing to keep in mind: malls are private property. And while I absolutely agree with your sentiment here, at the same time I also think it should probably be up to the owners of that property whether they want to allow guns on the premises.

At the same time, I think this would probably be a good idea. I say "probably" only because I've not looked too far into it; assuming it is as described I'd say "definitely." While I do think that the property owner has some say in whether or not guns are allowed, I think that if your property is open to the public yet you deprive them of their right to self defense (yet provide no additional security of your own) this should incur an additional liability.

As it stands I can probably understand why most places disallow firearms. Just an "internet lawyer" talking, but it's my understanding that in general if you don't disallow firearms and anything occurs (negligent discharge, intentional shooting, etc.) you've exposed yourself to a fair amount of liability...at least enough that your insurance company might settle out of court or some such. Yet if you do ban guns, and any such thing happens (like an intentional mass murder) there's little liability at all...after all, you told the guy he could have a gun, right? :rolleyes:

Seems to me that legislation like that in the above-linked thread would serve to change the equation a bit in favor of allowing people to actually choose for themselves whether they value their self-defense.
 
[/The conclusion of this is simple, if the political left, Democrats in general, would allow the honest citizens of our nation to carry firearms with them, they can stop these incidents or at least limit the death toll.QUOTE]

While the word "can" in your statement is critical. It means "to have the ability to" do something, but it does not mean the attempt will be prudent or successful.

For example, I noticed that you limited your sample. You could have gone with the Tale of Three Malls and gone with Omaha, Salt Lake, and Tacoma. Tacome did not restrict concealed carry and there was an armed concealed carry person there who did engage the shooter. Having a concealed carry gun wasn't enough to keep him from acting foolishly and the gunman shot him multiple times. Brandon (Danny) McKowan who carried a gun for the purpose of protecting others (he told the papers - as apparently he is one of those brave people who has honor and is willing to put his life on the line for others and could not live with himself without acting), drew his pistol and then reholstered it out of fear he would be arrested for brandishing or possibly getting shot by responding officers (who would not show up for several minutes). He also noted that the gunman was too far away for him to take a shot that would not endanger people other than the gunman. So what did he do? He revealed himself to the gunman by stepping out from behind cover and issue verbal commands to which the gunman promptly shot him multiple times, damaging his spine and crippling him for life.

Guns are one way in which bad guys can be stopped. The do offer an opportunity of response that isn't available to those who don't carry. The simple presence of a gun, however, does not bestow the carrier with the necessary shooting skills or mindset to handle the situation.
 
The folks who wrote our Constitution already thought this through.
Malls are private property, the First Amendment doesn't apply 'cause it says "Congress shall make no law.." so malls can ban soliciting and leafletting, etc.
The Second is different, it says "shall not be infringed", anywhere, by anyone. This is a very important distinction; imagine if it was illegal for your dog to leave you property unless you had all his teeth pulled. This is how people in the 18th Century viewed weapons--the natural birthright or humans. Even most gun owners are still like the frog sitting in the pot, it's getting hotter and hotter, but you don't notice because it's so gradual. Once you jump out of the pot, you realize most people are content to get cooked as long as they don't have to be responsible adults.
There, I said it. If you don't carry a gun everywhere you go, I don't think you're a responsible adult...and most 18th Century Americans would agree with me.
 
If you don't carry a gun everywhere you go, I don't think you're a responsible adult...and most 18th Century Americans would agree with me.

Well, golly. We'd all better start carrying around a gun all the time so that you think that we're responsible adults!

And we wouldn't want to offend 18th Century Americans, either!

:rolleyes:
 
Malls are private property, the First Amendment doesn't apply 'cause it says "Congress shall make no law.." so malls can ban soliciting and leafletting, etc.
The Second is different, it says "shall not be infringed", anywhere, by anyone. This is a very important distinction

Problem is, the Constitution is silent on your right to shop in a privately-owned mall, or for that matter enter my house. I'm in no way infringing on your right to keep and bear arms if I say you can't do it on my property...you're still absolutely free to keep them and bear them on public property, your property, or the property of others who don't mind. Well, hypothetically...obviously this isn't so true in many areas of the US today.

I stick by my original assertion; I'm well within my rights to restrict the carry of arms on mt property, but if that property is open to the public then I should be responsible for the safety of those who I've stripped of their ability to defend themselves.

And I too don't give a whit what 18th-century Americans think of me. We're talking about folks who thought that owning people was hunky dory (among other things). I'm not looking to them as the end-all of what's good an bad, right and wrong.
 
News flash--most 18th century Americans didn't own slaves. And most 18th century Americans were better educated than modern Americans, who seem content to live in a police state. Baa baa...
 
News flash--most 18th century Americans didn't own slaves. And most 18th century Americans were better educated than modern Americans, who seem content to live in a police state. Baa baa...

Actually, that's not a "news flash" to me...I was well aware that not every household in the 1700's owned slaves. However, it seems to me that a majority (or at least a significant portion) must have at least found the practice acceptable, even if they didn't participate, or I'd think it would have ended much earlier (and without contributing to the start of a civil war).

Then again, I wasn't just talking about slavery...hence the "among other things." Not treating women as equal citizens, not treating blacks as equal citizens (even when not owned as property), heck I could probably come up with a laundry list of reasons why I don't necessarily look to 18th century Americans as the ideal example of how society should be run. But then you're just probably reply with another witty implication that I'm a sheep (maybe even bust out everybody's favorite, "sheeple") so I'm thinking it's not worth the trouble.

And, in case you start seeing things that aren't there, in no way am I implying that 18th century Americans were all bad either. Just that "because 18th century Americans say so" isn't exactly an argument-winner in my book.


Also, I'd like to see a well-reasoned explanation as to how suggesting that

(A) a property owner should be able to decide if they will allow others to come onto their property armed, yet
(B) they should also be responsible for the consequences of those decisions, particularly if they open that property to the public

is somehow advocating or accepting a "police state."


Lastly, given the literacy rate in 18th century America alone (especially if you include women...or do they not count as "18th century Americans?) I find suspect your assertion that "most" Americans then were better educated than modern Americans. More politically active? Maybe. More defensive of their freedom? Maybe. But neither of these imply education, and I'm not seeing how the illiterate are going to manage to be much better educated than the literate.
 
Simply put, a property owner (we're talking malls, remember, not homes) can no more require you to disarm than they can require you to disrobe. I grew up in New England, we take our history seriously (ever hear of the underground railroad?) Jury nullification was so widely practiced in the 1850s that the slave catchers eventually gave up. But this wasn't about slavery, it was about the Constitution. Just because lots of folks claim it say "...but some animals are more equal than others" doesn't make it so, the text reads "shall not be infringed." Note the punctuation--PERIOD.

As for the education of common citizens--try reading a penny paper from the era, they're full of big words, complicated arguments, and classical references; the average modern newspaper is written at a 4th grade level, even the New York Times can only go to an eighth grade level without leaving much of their college educated readership behind. Historical allusions? The Classics? You're joking.

For my ancestors, gun ownership was a duty of citizenship--it was a package deal. You get to be free, but you have to take care of yourself. If you're out and about and not prepared to defend yourself...then you won't be able to. Just don't tell me I can't.
 
I have thought about the "private property" debate, and this is what I have come up with:

Most commercial locations such as malls, hospitals, and other large commercial ventures are not owned by people, they are owned by corporations. A corporation is an entity created by men that allows the owner of the corporation to escape personal liability for the actions undertaken by that business. The corporation cannot be charged with a crime (note that a civil penalty does not fall under criminal law), and the owners thereof generally cannot be sued personally for actions of the corporation. (Note that I said generally, I know there are exceptions) As such, the corporation, does not have natural rights, which are, after all, endowed by a creator. In this case, the creator is man.

A person owning property retains most of his or her rights. You have the right to prohibit self defense in your home. You are also legally responsible for the resulting mayhem and fallout from that decision.

I have always felt that authority, accountability, and responsibility cannot exist independently. You cannot claim the authority to prohibit weapons on a given property unless you are both responsible for that decision and can be held accountable for that decision.

In this case, it does not happen. The companies who own the victim free zones are never held accountable for the decision that made the victims helpless and enabled the shooter to carry out his plan. If you claim that property rights are absolute, then it follows that property liability is as well.
 
As for the education of common citizens--try reading a penny paper from the era, they're full of big words, complicated arguments, and classical references; the average modern newspaper is written at a 4th grade level, even the New York Times can only go to an eighth grade level without leaving much of their college educated readership behind. Historical allusions? The Classics? You're joking.

If we're talking about America as a whole (not just New England, which did have high literacy rates, at least among men) then it doesn't matter that the papers of the day used large words. A significant portion of the population couldn't read the small words. And a majority of the women couldn't read them...they are Americans as well, no? Again we get into reasons that I don't look to 18th century Americans as role models. So yes, it's arguable that perhaps the average New England male of the 18th century was better educated than the average American. But that's not what you said.

Just because lots of folks claim it say "...but some animals are more equal than others" doesn't make it so, the text reads "shall not be infringed." Note the punctuation--PERIOD.

I don't see where communism comes into play here, but whatever. Nobody is infringing on your right to bear arms by not allowing you to enter their private property. There are a lot of battles that need to be fought, and while I do see where you're coming from not only do I disagree but I think the battle to force property owners to let you bring guns onto their property is one you will never win.

I think, however, that you can convince them to do so all on their own by making them liable for the consequences of their decision to ban guns on their property...basically what divemedic said.
 
18th Century men (and not just in New England) were so well educated because their mothers taught them--home schooling is hardly an new idea.
When the Constitution was written, modern corporations were not yet legal; this happened in 1842. One proof that this was a bad idea is how corporate "property rights" conflict with natural rights, but that is a story for another thread.
"Animal Farm" is about how all revolutions get co-opted by the rich, and George Orwell was about as anti-communist as a person could be; but this does prove my point about poor education and the uselessness of making classical allusions.
 
Everyone gets hung up on the private property rights issue. I have no problem with a property owner saying I cant' do this or that on or in their property.
What I think is wrong, is when the State makes that anything other than a trespassing issue.

You put up a sign that says " No hats in My Store" that is your right. If I walk in wearing a hat you can say "Take off the hat or leave" I can either take off the hat, leave or be charged with trespassing for refusing to leave your property.

It becomes immoral when your sign has legal weight. If I miss the sign or can't read I go to jail for walking in with my hat on.

When the State gives Gun Buster signs legal authority the constitution is subverted.
 
Anyone that thinks a Sign will keep this from happening , Needs to wake up!

Yep! A sign will protect everyone from the bad man!:rolleyes:


ARE THERE REALLY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT BELIEVE THIS?????????:eek:
 
Back
Top