imported post
cloudcroft wrote:
Okay, so you're the typical "don't get involved" type and feel helpless with your hadgun, i.e., just an average, garden-varietyperson, armed or not makes no difference. But please don't extend your shortcomings to others similarly armed but with a very differentmindset.
For example:
1. Some people can do plenty with a "mere" handgun.
2. Some of these same peoplecouldn't care less if they die, either (so the shooter has no advantage there).
Consequently, such a person would be more of a threat tosaid shooter than one or even a bunch of cops...had such a person been there and was carrying, even if carrying illegally (as some do).
Still, it's up toevery individual to look after his/her own personal protection...those who refuse to do so -- to be armed -- may get to die for that choice whether they want to or not, since they are powerless to prevent it.
No sympathy for them here.
Butthe mall owners should be sued/jailed for not providing protection for customers, asshould all those school districts/Administrators/Principals not protecting students/teachers,and corporate executives/suits not protecting their employees (but not allowing said employees to be armed at work)...and so on.
But that doesn't happen, does it.
So we just wait for the next school, workplace or mall shooting. And the ones after that...
-- John D.
The mall owners should be sued?! Holy crap. :shock:
School's possibly K-12 should be held liable, as they are requiring students to be there, at least until a certain age.
Nobody makes you go to the mall. Therefore, provide your own security, and if firearms are banned, either ignore the sign (which I don't neccesarily advocate)or choose elsewhere to shop.
Most of the crimes that do happen in the mall are petty, and it is all about the allmight dollar, the person who gives them the lowest bid gets the contract. You get what you payfor. They are looking for the security to be a deterrent for shoplifters, knowing full and well that if an armed threat presents itself, most security gaurds will be the first ones out the door.
I think that a decent approach would to have off duty LE armed at the entrances and exits, the guy today came in in full camo with a backpack and rifle in plain view, obviously they would have noticed something wasn't right before he even approached the entrance.
At my past job, people reacted very badly to armed in uniform off duty LEO's. They felt that the area was unsafe, and didn't look past that to see it as an "insurance policy" or a simple precaution.
I respect anyones decision if armed, and not being paid to protect the area, to run as fast as anyone else who just wanted to get the hell out of there.
Most people didn't know if there was more than one shooter, he had a rifle, plenty of ammo. What if he had been wearing body armor? I don't think a lot of us wear body armor when we are out and about, and (some do) not a lot of us carry enough ammo to sustain a firefight with a man weilding a rifle with a bag full of ammunition.
The most ammo I carry is 33 rounds of 9mm. Unless I get very lucky, I probably am not going to be able to take this guy down unless I am very close and he doesn't see me, even harder if he is wearing armor. Have him throw a couple rounds your way and see if you want to peek around the corner again.
I think anyone at that moment also knew that this guy wasn't there to just hold up the place and kill anyone who got in his way, he was there to kill anyone he could.
Suing the mall however is out of the question... a ridiculous thought.
