Omaha Ne Mall shooting

[BrandiJo]

Perhaps a better discussion could be had about the state of mental health care and the abilities of law enforcement, health leaders and others to intervene when an individual's mental state and behaviour dictate stronger measures for the protection of both the patient and the public.

I think that would be the most ideal solution. But how do you help someone who does not want to be helped? How do you identify someone who is just jumping though the hoops so as to avoid being noticed. My old MA teacher knew the kid, she said he was the nicest kid in the world, did some time at the detention center where her husband works and was on a good track, but something went wrong, some how all the help he was supposed to be getting never got though, but not for lack of trying. So how do we tell the state to fix its act when alot was already being done for this kid, or any other kid. Im not saying he wasn't really off the last few years, but as a kid early teens from what i understand he was on a good path but once he got off it seems there was no stopping him.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I think that would be the most ideal solution. But how do you help someone who does not want to be helped?

That's my point... It is a complicated issue that goes against the principal of getting solutions fast and stupid. That's why nobody talks about it. It's so much easier to conclude that we more or fewer guns, depending upon who's talking.

 

[MJS]

The truth is that we can all talk about how if someone with a gun had been there, they could've stopped this. But... if someone with a gun had been there, the outcome might have been even worse; lots more people killed in a running gunfight, for example.

Exactly the reason why I wouldn't be too keen on the idea of this. I'd rather take my chances with no weapon, than have someone who may have questionable training at best, who could possibly make a bad situation much worse.

Mike

 

[Grenadier]

Looks like someone had a spark of common sense, and took down the "gun-free zone" signs.

http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-from-westroads.html

 

[jks9199]

Exactly the reason why I wouldn't be too keen on the idea of this. I'd rather take my chances with no weapon, than have someone who may have questionable training at best, who could possibly make a bad situation much worse.

Mike

That wasn't exactly my point...

I believe that we all should have the right to carry a firearm, if we choose, unless there is a particular reason to prohibit someone (mental illness, criminal history, etc.). And I absolutely agree that in places that decide to limit the ability of those legally entitled to carry to do so -- the only people with guns will be crooks. I just don't buy into the "if only there was a lawfully armed citizen, this would've ended differently" idea, either. It could easily have been made worse...

I do carry a gun, almost anywhere I go. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'd have been shooting... Taking a shot in a place like a crowded mall is a nightmare scenario to me. One of the Cardinal Rules of Firearm Safety is to "know your target... and what is beyond it (the backstop)." In a crowded mall, there's a really good chance that your backstop is going to be PEOPLE. Not good! The issue of when and how to take direct action has been covered elsewhere; I'll sum it up by saying that, sometimes, the best action that you can take without putting even more people in danger, is to take cover, and call it in.

 

[MJS]

That wasn't exactly my point...

I believe that we all should have the right to carry a firearm, if we choose, unless there is a particular reason to prohibit someone (mental illness, criminal history, etc.). And I absolutely agree that in places that decide to limit the ability of those legally entitled to carry to do so -- the only people with guns will be crooks. I just don't buy into the "if only there was a lawfully armed citizen, this would've ended differently" idea, either. It could easily have been made worse...

I do carry a gun, almost anywhere I go. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'd have been shooting... Taking a shot in a place like a crowded mall is a nightmare scenario to me. One of the Cardinal Rules of Firearm Safety is to "know your target... and what is beyond it (the backstop)." In a crowded mall, there's a really good chance that your backstop is going to be PEOPLE. Not good! The issue of when and how to take direct action has been covered elsewhere; I'll sum it up by saying that, sometimes, the best action that you can take without putting even more people in danger, is to take cover, and call it in.

Points taken. Additionally, considering the LEOs responding to this situation are already gearing up for a stressful situation, now, with a civilian in the mix with a gun as well, you just may be putting yourself in harms way with the police, as they're not going to know if you're the bad guy, or just someone who wants to help.

 

[jks9199]

Points taken. Additionally, considering the LEOs responding to this situation are already gearing up for a stressful situation, now, with a civilian in the mix with a gun as well, you just may be putting yourself in harms way with the police, as they're not going to know if you're the bad guy, or just someone who wants to help.

When the uniformed cops arrive... ANYONE else stops, and follows their directions. We've got ways to ID each other (no, I'm not sharing them), but they're no guarantee. The rule in civilian attire or plainclothes is that you obey the uniforms.

And, until they know different, ANYONE with a gun other than the other uniformed cops is presumed to be a bad guy.