Shooting at Oregon mall

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that the criminals who commit these types of crimes are ,in part if not completely, motivated by the fame they know they will recieve after the fact.

Every news organization in the country is playing this story every hour, on the hour. The bad guys also seem to relish the fact that if they commit their crimes with controversial weapons, the airplay will even be greater.

Why must American society crave the endless news attention these nimrod's relish?
 
They need to find the person who's ar was stolen and hold him/her accountable for this as well. If that person would have secured their weapon properly this tradegy may have been avoided.
 
I hadn't heard it was stolen. Do you have a source?
Click to expand...

In the News conference the Clackamas County Sheriff did say the weapon was stolen.


BUT

I don't see how the owner could be held responsable.
 
They need to find the person who's ar was stolen and hold him/her accountable for this as well.
Click to expand...

So if a thug steals your car, runs over someone killing them, should you be held accountable???

If that person would have secured their weapon properly this tradegy may have been avoided.
Click to expand...

There are not very many ways to 100% secure anything we own, guns included.

While it is my responsibility to secure my belongings as best I can, if someone breaks into my house and steals something then goes out and commits a crime with it, please explain how I should be held accountable. :confused:
 
The criminologists and psychologists (as I said before) are pretty much in agreement that some rampage shooters are influenced by past accounts. They study fan sites for Columbine and VT. They buy gear from the stores that sold such to the previous killers.

The 'if it bleeds, it leads' media view will keep up the flow. Every time you see a crying loved one, it reinforces some of the shooters who want to generate that pain - even after their own death. It is either that they enjoy as a revenge fantasy or want to teach society a lesson - and it can be both.

Of course, the 1st Amend. protects such stories as well it should. Whether media should use discretion is a market place issue.

However, the motivations are complex and just fame or antigun plots don't capture it.
 
I don't get that - what good is there for most interactions?
Click to expand...

I had a defensive instructor who certainly agreed with you. While you may be attacked in your car, if you are attacked, chances are largely that it will be somewhere else and so a gun or pepperspray in your car will do you no good.

Fox News says the shooter's AR-15 rifle did jam and that he was able to get it working at least long enough to shoot himself.
Click to expand...

The malfunctioning of firearms has played a role in several shootings, often with quite negative consequences for the ill-trained bad guys, but sometimes for ill-trained good guys.

There were two (that I know of) in the North Hollywood Shootout. One was a stovepipe of the AK carried by the bad guy who walked and he discarded the gun when it happened and was soon dead. The other was by one of the SWAT officers who rolled up on the other guy in the white car. His was in his M4 and in the video you can see him roll out behind the squad car to fire, have a problem, roll back behind 'cover' over the car, and the roll out again and start firing. For him, the only problem was losing a few seconds of battle.

Malfunctions experienced by bad guys seem to often take the wind out of their sails.
 
While many public shootings take place in gun-free zones, not all do. The Tuscon and Aurora shootings did not. Furthermore, I don't recall any of the surviving gunmen having explicitly said they deliberately chose gun-free zones.
Click to expand...

You are correct that the Tucson shooting did not occur in a gun free zone. Most classify this as a mass shooting. In reality, it was an assassination attempt. There was one CCW'er carrying in the Walgreens next door to the Safeway. His name is Joe Zamudio and I've met him (he shoots regularly at the range I shoot at). If he had been on scene 10 seconds earlier, it's likely he would have saved lives. But by the time he was on scene, the brave heroes who were there had already disarmed the attacker.

However, the Aurora, CO shooting was different. The municipality of Aurora had a strict law on carrying guns (basically impossible). The thing about it is it's unenforced because of Colorado's preemption law. The movie theater, however, had a "no gun" policy in affect. Even though in CO, no gun signs do not have force of law (you can be asked to leave if your gun is spotted) many people don't realize this. Technically, guns were not allowed in that theater. However, it wouldn't have been illegal for someone to be carrying. If we're looking to "no gun" areas as being a possible motive, the shooter might not have known the law well enough to know that it was legal to carry there.

I basically agree with you that "no guns" is not always a motive. But it's interesting how the majority (there's always an exception) of mass shootings occur in places where guns are not allowed. Ft. Hood (even though it's military, very few, if any Military bases allow anyone to carry except for MPs), Columbine, VT, Norway (the killer chose the location specifically because he knew LEO response would be slow, and no one had a means to protect themselves). There's more than that, and a common thread is that they occur in areas that don't allow guns. Whether that's part of the motive is up for debate. It could be because mass murder attempts in areas that allow concealed carry are stopped before they get bad. Maybe not, I don't know.
 
But it's interesting how the majority (there's always an exception) of mass shootings occur in places where guns are not allowed.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have proof of this claim. I am fairly confident that most mass shootings do not occur in gun free zones. They most often occur in non-public areas and garner little press coverage. They actually happen quite regularly and don't even get much play in the media or here.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499623

Turns out, a lot are familial and domestic violence, often occurring in homes of gun owners. We don't discuss them very much. Heck, most of us don't expect our neighbor, father, uncle, mother, etc. to all of a sudden try to kill us all, but if they do, it tends to be somewhat localized and often much worse of than this failed mass shooting at the Oregon mall (usually defined and 4 or more shootees in a given even or event series, not including the shooter).
 
From what I've read and understand of mass shooting, while they do often occur at gun free zones, they more so seem to target what I would call soft targets.

Whereas people maybe carrying guns there, but physical security and a meaningful guard force are slim.

Glenn, you stated that mass shooters are influenced by the mass media portrayal of other rampage shootings.

Would a restricition on coverage of said shootings be in line with the whole don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater thing?
 
I saw a story on the news today about this. They were demonstrating various ways to protect yourself from stray bullets, et cetera. It's great they are trying to keep people safe, but the fact that, during cover storys for all the recent mass shootings, there has been no mention of conceal carry at all. Colorado and Oregon, from my understanding, are pro-CCW. Why no mention of the one thing that truly could have prevented the loss of those lives..

That is, someone shooting this nutcase before he got to the food court. He had a gun, he was saying maniacal things, he was running, shouts 'self-defense' to me. Is there anything that spells out an inability to legally defend yourself and others this way?
 
1. clackamas town center doesnt have any postings suggesting its a gun free zone. although after this tragedy it probably will. unfortunately.

2.kraigwy im glad to hear your daughter is ok! i shop at that mall frequently as well.

3. i know im preachin to the choir but...carry 100% of the time where legally possible! you just never know if & when you will need it
 
I am not in favor of censorship of reports except for common sense self-censorship.

While the effects may be real, such is a slippery slope as are gun restrictions.

Why have 30 round mags or why let the press report true things?

It's the BOR. There are dangers in both but the greate good prevails.
 
Whether or not the mall was a Gun Free Zone is immaterial. There were perhaps 10,000 shoppers in there, and the odds are only a few of them were armed, and even less that they were in proximity to the shooter.
 
From what I've read and understand of mass shooting, while they do often occur at gun free zones, they more so seem to target what I would call soft targets.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, this is just plain smart. If you goal is to kill people, going after those that are mostly likely to defeat you quickly (unless they are your specific target) means likely not making your goal. However, despite numerous police station shootings and attacks on police officers, armored cars, and the like, much or most of America is a pretty soft target. It is much harder to find hardened targets to shoot up than soft targets here in America. I would hazard a guess that 99% or more of small businesses don't have armed security, >80% of not-for-profits and >80% of major companies don't have adequate armed security or don't have any at all. When they do, it is at specific facilities only and not throughout the corporations.

Glenn noted this earlier, but a LOT of these shootings are not random location shootings. Some are, but a lot are specific to problems that the shooter has with people at the given location. Typical of these are school and workplace shootings. When an employee at company X gets into trouble at work, is picked on by coworkers, or gets fired, he doesn't drive cross town and shoot up company Q. He goes back to where he had the problem at company X. Harris and Klebold and numerous other school shooters who were students shot up their own schools, not somebody else's school.

In short, the targets aren't chosen for being soft per se in most of the cases. Softness seems to have virtually nothing to do with the targeted location relative to the reason for wanting to kill peoplee at the location.
 
Well said, Mr. Meyer.

The "fire in a theatre" idea doesn't equate here. In the case of "fire in the theatre," the idea is preventing one's provoking a life-threatening cattle stampede in an exigent situation. In the case of media reportage, you're talking about third-party reporting after the dust has settled. Limiting that right is stomping the First Amendment into the dust. I despise the main stream media with a burning loathing that defies description. But I'll never subscribe to curbing their ability to lie freely. The truth will out.
 
I don't think you have proof of this claim. I am fairly confident that most mass shootings do not occur in gun free zones. They most often occur in non-public areas and garner little press coverage. They actually happen quite regularly and don't even get much play in the media or here.
Click to expand...

What you're referring to would be domestic violence. In the small town in Alaska that I used to live, there was a "mass murder" (first of it's kind there) a few years ago. 18ish Y.O. kid snapped, and took a kitchen knife to his family. Killed three, wounded another. Even though the number would make it a mass murder, it was labeled as domestic violence.

What I'm talking about is public mass shootings, where the victims and shooter have no more than an acquaintance status (and more likely, no relationship at all). It's a tough subject. I would never say that mass killings only occur where guns aren't allowed. It's simply not true. But many do. The Norway killing, for example, is a great example. He chose that target mainly because he knew there would be no resistance. The man who shot up the Jewish Community Center in 1999 chose that target because he knew there would be little to no resistance. He had two or three other targets in mind, but was afraid people might have a means of fighting back, or there was security. The wikipedia page on the shooting says "...security measures presented too much of a problem."

I guess my real point isn't that mass shootings only occur in places that don't allow guns. They do happen with frequency in those areas, either coincidentally, or purposely. My real point is the point most of us are aware of...no gun areas aren't safer, and are in actuality more dangerous than areas where guns are allowed.

This is the same reason Germany didn't invade Switzerland during WWII, and Japan didn't invade the mainland US after Pearl Harbor (they probably could have done it with the Pacific fleet decimated the way it was). They knew citizens of these countries had weapons in their homes and the last thing they wanted to do was get into an insurgent war.

EDIT:

Harris and Klebold and numerous other school shooters who were students shot up their own schools, not somebody else's school.
Click to expand...

Something to think about and consider (since there's no way to tell). Would those two monsters have shot up their school if there had been a policy that allowed teachers and administrators with carry permits to carry on the premises?

Personally, I'd like to think not. Keep in mind, they cowardly killed themselves when they knew they were about to be taken. It's proven time and time again (yes, there are always exceptions...I know) that as soon as crazy people meet resistance, one of two things happen.

1) They stop what they're doing and surrender/take their own life

2) They focus their attention on the resistance, allowing innocents to get out of the way.

Either way, innocent lives are saved.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but I can't let gun cliches go by. If we argue from cliches we lose credibility.

We have shooters who have thought about armed response but we have clear ones who don't. The samples and unknown cases make it hard to quantify deterrence, esp. against those who are sucidial - 40% at least. We can't know who was deterred but we certainly know those who weren't.

Second, the Switzerland and Japanese examples are more complex than a gun cliche.

1. The Japanese had no known plans to invade the USA mainland. The supposed source cannot be proven to be such. The Japanese plans are well known and I've read some scholarly texts on such. The threat was never real or even planned. To quote a suspect quote makes us look less than credible.

2. Switzerland - Switzerland did plan for resistance but the real reason for no invasion were many fold:

a. The Swiss collaborated with the Nazis - it is very well known. They gave Hitler most everything he wanted. Thus the German felt no need to invade. They did have invasion plans if needed and they would have conquered them with a bit of trouble. It would be a diversion and not worth it since they got everything they wanted.

b. The real military threat was the destruction of Swiss tunnels to Italy that would negatively impact German forces in Italy. That was more important than Swiss armed resistance in their calculations.

3. Columbine was supposed to be a sophisticated bombing. The shootings happened when the bombs failed. Armed teachers don't deter bombers.

Antigunners are prone to hyperbole. We shouldn't be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top