Killing Spree at American Mall

Discussion Open Forum
1

From CNN:

[quote]CNN) – A gunman killed eight people and wounded five others Wednesday at the popular Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, before apparently turning the gun on himself, police said.

“We do not believe that we have any other shooter,” said Sgt. Teresa Negron.

The shooting took place at the Von Maur store inside the shopping complex, which was locked down, the Nebraska State Patrol said.

Shoppers and employees walked out of the building with their hands up. Some described hiding in clothes racks and dressing rooms after hearing the shots.

[b]“I was standing around getting ready to go back to work and all of a sudden I heard this bang, bang, bang – it sounded like someone shooting fireworks,” a witness told CNN affiliate KETV. “I ran to get away from whatever was happening.”

Shoppers described scenes of horror as they fled the mall.

“We heard about 35, 40 shots, and on our way our we did see someone down by the escalator, bleeding,” Jennifer Cramer told KETV. [/b]

Another witness said people started running frantically from the Von Maur area saying there was a shooting.

“I heard three loud pops,” said mall employee Charissa Tatoon. “Immediately after that, there was a series of maybe 20 to 25 more shots up on the third floor.” She said she saw a man shot on the second floor and “at least four or five” people brought out on gurneys.

Another woman who works at the mall said she saw a woman shot, and added that the shots seemed to be coming from inside the Von Maur store, on an upper level.

People were gathering outside the mall, checking on loved ones believed to be inside.[/quote]

Article says 8 people killed, but that has been updated to 9. Not really sure what to say about this latest killing spree. It’s shocking and tragic, but seems to be par for the course these days. So maybe not so shocking.

2

Again. Why am I not surprised?

3

It’s sad when we’re no longer surprised or shocked.

4

Well I for one am gobsmacked that the theory an armed society is a civil society failed to stop a suicidal gunman killing his peers. Didn’t he know other people may have been packing heat too?

Have they posted his myspace page and taunting threats yet?

HG

5

And what will the government do about it? Oh, try to institute prayer in schools or some such rot.

6

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Well I for one am gobsmacked that the theory an armed society is a civil society failed to stop a suicidal gunman killing his peers. Didn’t he know other people may have been packing heat too?

Have they posted his myspace page and taunting threats yet?

HG[/quote]

perhaps cyberbullying led to his suicide.

Somehow I don’t think the notion of deterrence when everyone is presumed to be carrying a lethal weapon works on a teenager who’s angry, depressed, etc.

I don’t see why some believe the 2nd Amendment is at risk if access to firearms is better controlled through reasonable means.

7

[quote=“Chris”]And what will the government do about it? Oh, try to institute prayer in schools or some such rot.[/quote]“Oh God, in Your infinity mercy and justice, save us from ourselves.”

8

. . .or suicidal. That’s a big flaw in that theory right there.

HG

9

At the risk of being labeled a snob I’ll confess my feeling that most of these cases seem like truly pathetic acts of a depressed, screwed up individual who is sick and tired of his pitiful life, just wants to end all the pain, but realizes simply offing himself would be the epitome of pathetic, cowardly acts, so he is deluded into believing if he goes out in a blaze of glory, guns blazing, taking a dozen people along with him, striking fear into the hearts of hundreds or thousands of terrified people, that somehow his end won’t be quite so pathetic. They’re wrong, of course. It’s even more pathetic, but unfortunately the crazed shooter will never know that, because he went out thinking he was a big screen hero.

10

It appears the shooter had an accomplice in this. This person, in camouflage clothing, was found hiding under a bus bench outside and has been taken into custody.

story at:
msnbc.msn.com/id/22117150/

reports are still somewhat unclear about the episode.

More info:
ketv.com/news/14782867/detail.html

[i]"OMAHA, Neb. — The shooter at Westroads Mall was identified as Robert A. Hawkins of Bellevue, according to the Sarpy County Sheriff’s Department, and a suicide note said he was going to be famous.

Hawkins, 19, had been arrested on a couple of misdemeanors in November and was due in court this month. One charge included minor in possession of alcohol. He was arrested on Nov. 24. He was due in court for an arraignment on Dec. 19.

Sarpy County deputies said they are getting a warrant to search Hawkins’ home in the Quail Creek neighborhood in Bellevue."[/i]

11

And they do make it to the big screen, while the little old lady that hangs herself in shame because she can’t raise the rent never raises a mention even in the smallest margin of her local paper.

There’s somethiing really screwed up with the way these events are reported. I’m willing to bet we’ll have this wanker’s myspace page, favourite music and gun toting poses sometime within the next 24 hours. And sometime in the next few weeks some other idiot will be busted for threatening to wander down to his local mall and do the same.

While I’m on it, I hate shopping malls. Please dear lord, don’t let me die gunned down by some suburban idiot in a freakin’ shopping mall!

HG

12

There is nothing “well regulated” about the (lack of) gun control in the US. Only people who are prepared to fight for their country (i.e. military trained) or people who demonstrate a genuine long term participation in gun use for sport/hunting should be allowed to buy weapons in a highly regulated environment.

Allowing anyone to buy weapons is not in the spirit of “a well regulated Militia” and is certainly not “necessary to the security of a free state”

…and it goes on. And on.

13

unfortunately the wording is clear. the people who wrote the constitution were solid about that. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is the controlling phrase, the other stuff is clearly subordinate.

it would take a constitutional amendment to change it, one i would be strongly in favor of fwiw. wtf? it’s just crazy.

still there’s something a bit weird, or macabre about the “i told u so” tone of some of the comments when one of these sad events occurs in the us.

14

I agree with you that the controlling phrase is the second part, Tempo Gain. But that second part can be read in different ways. Some argue that “the people” was intended to mean that it is a collective right (i.e. that the federal government can’t take away the rights of the states to maintain militias). People back then were pretty concerned about the federal government having an army that could bully the states. (It’s a weird concept for us to think about now, I know, but that was the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written.)

If you’re interested in the subject, you may enjoy a lecture that I ran across recently by one of Chicago’s top con law guys. It’s exactly on point.

Cass Sunstein: “The Second Amendment: The Constitution’s Most Mysterious Right”

Cass Sunstein is generally considered a liberal by University of Chicago standards, but he is very sharp, and also very fair. If you listen to his analysis I think that comes across. Anyway… I thought it was an interesting talk. You can probably fit it in during a lunch hour.

H

15

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]unfortunately the wording is clear. the people who wrote the constitution were solid about that. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is the controlling phrase, the other stuff is clearly subordinate.

it would take a constitutional amendment to change it, one I would be strongly in favor of fwiw. wtf? it’s just crazy.[/quote]

Wrong. I’ve explained this repeatedly and will do so again.

The wording of the First Amendment is equally clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

But only a lunatic would claim the rights enumerated in it are absolute, unconditional rights that may not be restricted in any way. We all agree that Congress may pass laws restricting certain types of speech (eg., relating to kidnapping, bank robbery, terrorist threats, blackmail, etc.). The same goes for all of the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. They are all subject to reasonable limitations, including the Second Amendment. It is no more sacred than the rest of the Bill of Rights. Sure, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” subject to reasonable limitations.

Not at all. It would be weirder to see madmen committing massacres time after time after time and not question whether there might be a problem and maybe something could/should be done about it.

16

I understand about the context, I hope lol. still the wording is explicit, which is what the framers intended. i always figured “people” and “right” were in the “is” category of words. Any alternate definitions would seem to require some serious legal tap dancing.

has the general interpretation of this amendment ever received any serious court challenge? i’m under the impression it hasn’t.

17

Not at all. It would be weirder to see madmen committing massacres time after time after time and not question whether there might be a problem and maybe something could/should be done about it.[/quote]
Would it be weird or macabre to suggest that something is broken, and unless it’s fixed, it’s just going to keep on happening?

Where next?

18

According to cnn, there is no second shooter …

cnn.com/2007/US/12/05/mall.s … index.html

So who’s that guy in the camo outfit in the pic near the beginning of the thread? Just a bad fashion choice? Anyone in black overcoats also arrested?

19

I thought I was clear. I guess not.

BUT, Congress may make laws:

  • prohibiting speech that is deemed a terrorist threat
  • prohibiting speech that is deemed defamatory
  • prohibiting speech that is deemed blackmail/extortion
  • prohibiting speech that is deemed a threat on the President
    etc.

BUT, Congress and the States may pass laws:

  • prohibiting the right to keep and bear certain types of arms (eg., grenade launchers, etc.)
  • prohibiting certain persons from keeping and bearing arms (eg., convicted felons, etc.)
  • requiring a waiting period before keeping and bearing arms
  • requiring a background check before keeping and bearing arms.

What’s the big deal? Why do gun nuts scream bloody murder about the supposed infringement of their rights? There’s no difference between the reasonable limitations on constitutional rights that are described above, is there? If so, what’s the difference – why is it permissible to impose limitations on the other rights but not the right to keep and bear arms?

20

FARQ’s on parade.