recent mall shooting - what they don't tell you

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

[loki0629 55]

Thanks for posting that.

 

I was wondering what the ccw laws were for that area. When I make it to a shall issue state I'll be sure to stay away from areas like that. I'd hate to have been a ccw holder present during the attack. I'd be furious.

[nalioth 405]

Thanks for posting that.

 

I was wondering what the ccw laws were for that area. When I make it to a shall issue state I'll be sure to stay away from areas like that. I'd hate to have been a ccw holder present during the attack. I'd be furious.

Please keep in mind that some businesses do not follow the law in their "NO GUNS HERE" signage such as the following:

 

Here in Texas, if you are a private business, you can't just throw up the "gun in a red circle w/slash" and expect CHL holders to legally be kept out. Our signage has to be specific and in accordance with the law. This is the Texas law for "no legally carried guns allowed" signage, straight from the horses mouth: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administratio...signposting.htm

Edited December 6, 2007 by nalioth

[patriot 7,197]

Should we start a pool on how long it will take before the asshole politicians start demonizing the firearm rather than the loose nut behind the trigger?

 

Ever notice how there's always a nut on a rampage within a year of a major election? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Twinsen 86]

You can get any kind of gun ever manufactured in any country in the entire world illegally transported to any part of any country in the entire world.

 

Our right to defend ourselves is the only thing we have to prevent harm to come to us.

 

Saying that, I admit that I am a coward. I have never illegally carried a handgun (I have a permit) on my college campus. I'm ashamed of that. I'm more interested in protecting my freedom than the safety of those around me. Thanks government, for making me have to choose one or the other.

[Koliadko 207]

That pissed me off, big time. I've known this but it will never cease to amaze me. Gun free zone equals mass murder. Mandatory gun ownership equals little to no crime. This isn't rocket science.

 

It's not 'Lights are on, no one home'. It's more like 'Lights aren't on. Why did we expect anyone to be home?'

[G O B 3,516]

I was talking to the wife about the fact that all of these things happen in gun-free kill zones. She wants to know --WHAT did the people who had these areas DO to provide for the safty of the people who come there????

We have a God given right to self defense. If you kick a dog you cannot sue when he bites you. He has the right of a dumb animal to defend himself. That is the right that cannot be taken away from us. It is hardwired in instinct to defend themselves.

We do not suddenly and magically loose that right just because are human. The asshats that demand you leave your weapon behind must provide you with at least the level of security that you could provide for yourself. By denying you means of defending

yourself ---they assume the responsibility for your welfare. If they do not provied it then they must be held liable for any damage or injury you recieve. BIG $$$$$ Lawsuits!

Maybe the bottom line is the only way to get their attention.

[Koliadko 207]

If you kick a dog you cannot sue when he bites you.

 

Ah, yeah G, you can. Therein lies the problem.

[Navy87Guy 1]

Here in Texas, if you are a private business, you can't just throw up the "gun in a red circle w/slash" and expect CHL holders to legally be kept out. Our signage has to be specific and in accordance with the law. This is the Texas law for "no legally carried guns allowed" signage, straight from the horses mouth: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administratio...signposting.htm

 

Even better here in the Old Dominion - "No Gun" signs carry no force of law. No amount of wording in the world can make it a crime for you to legally carry a concealed weapon on private property. If you are "caught" carrying in one of those death zones, all they can do is ask you to leave. Now, you can be cited for trespassing if you refuse -- but at that point I'd leave, and take my business with me.

 

Amazing how the Wachovia banks in our area seem to be the favorite targets for bank robbers. Could it be the prominent "No Guns" signs they post??

 

Jim

Edited December 7, 2007 by Navy87Guy

[Twinsen 86]

Amazing how the Wachovia banks in our area seem to be the favorite targets for bank robbers. Could it be the prominent "No Guns" signs they post??

 

Jim

 

That's the kind of thing that would make a banker want to switch banks, don't ya think? It's like a convenience store advertising that the bullet proof glass is fake.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Twinsen

[Bvamp 604]

my father's bank here in FL, you have to be buzzed into a vault just to enter, that is in turn buzzed again to let you into the bank itself. you also have to exit the building this way, in reverse order, and if you take the fire exit, i am SURE a cop will be RIGHT there within seconds, as they sit right in the parking lot tagging people, almost like there was a space made just for it in front of the bank for them to shoot cars with radar with on the main road.

 

that place wont ever get robbed.

 

edit: clarity

Edited December 7, 2007 by Bvamp

[dayanx 1]

= No Baretta 92s allowed

[nycGUNguy 61]

I was talking to the wife about the fact that all of these things happen in gun-free kill zones. She wants to know --WHAT did the people who had these areas DO to provide for the safty of the people who come there????

We have a God given right to self defense. If you kick a dog you cannot sue when he bites you. He has the right of a dumb animal to defend himself. That is the right that cannot be taken away from us. It is hardwired in instinct to defend themselves.

We do not suddenly and magically loose that right just because are human. The asshats that demand you leave your weapon behind must provide you with at least the level of security that you could provide for yourself. By denying you means of defending

yourself ---they assume the responsibility for your welfare. If they do not provied it then they must be held liable for any damage or injury you recieve. BIG $$$$$ Lawsuits!

Maybe the bottom line is the only way to get their attention.

 

 

Well said sir. I too believe that this is the only way that anyone will listen to the logic, or rather, lack of logic that these type of premesis bans presents. If they do not want your LEGALLY carried gun to enter then they had better provide an equal measure of protection and when they do not, then they had better expect multiple multimillion dollar lawsuits not only by those who had been denied their right to be armed but also those families of those who could have been saved by someone else being armed.

 

nyclu3

[taurussvt 0]

my father's bank here in FL, you have to be buzzed into a vault just to enter, that is in turn buzzed again to let you into the bank itself. you also have to exit the building this way, in reverse order, and if you take the fire exit, i am SURE a cop will be RIGHT there within seconds, as they sit right in the parking lot tagging people, almost like there was a space made just for it in front of the bank for them to shoot cars with radar with on the main road.

 

that place wont ever get robbed.

 

edit: clarity

That's how the banks are in Italy too. They have some really strict gun laws over there as well that protect criminals from getting shot just like here in New Jersey. When I was there a couple of years ago I had to go in to a bank to exchange some money and the first thing you have to do in order to enter the bank is take out any metal you may be carrying and put it in a tray and then you walk in to this thing that looks like a telephone booth where the doors close you in, you get x-rayed or whatever the hell they do to you, and if you're good, the inside door opens and you can enter the bank. Seemed a little extreme at the moment but it seems to work well for them.

Edited December 7, 2007 by taurussvt

[RangerM9 1]

That pissed me off, big time. I've known this but it will never cease to amaze me. Gun free zone equals mass murder. Mandatory gun ownership equals little to no crime. This isn't rocket science.

 

It's not 'Lights are on, no one home'. It's more like 'Lights aren't on. Why did we expect anyone to be home?'

 

 

one qualifier to that - I think guns and booze do not mix well....ever.....i would want bars to be gun free as much as possible.....other than that.....i'm with ya

[RangerM9 1]

Stills form security videos are up online ....it was an AK variant of some sort.....

[grunerbf 0]

Just found this on MSNBC about the gun he used. Once again the news is trying to make them sound illegal to own.

 

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-US&brand=...ae-df4493c926a5

 

You may have to watch a commerical before the vid starts.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation

 

Has a good video with the images in it in good quality.

 

Yes, AK47 not SKS. You can see he has two 30rd mags taped together and offset to be swapped over when out of ammo. No Duckbill mag in those pics.

[Koliadko 207]

That pissed me off, big time. I've known this but it will never cease to amaze me. Gun free zone equals mass murder. Mandatory gun ownership equals little to no crime. This isn't rocket science.

 

It's not 'Lights are on, no one home'. It's more like 'Lights aren't on. Why did we expect anyone to be home?'

 

 

one qualifier to that - I think guns and booze do not mix well....ever.....i would want bars to be gun free as much as possible.....other than that.....i'm with ya

 

 

Ah, but you're on a slippery slope on that one. First off, how many incidences are there with legal gun owners in bars? I have no idea. But then are they going to ban gun ownership to people that drink at home? Who's next? Like I said. Very slippery slope.

[patriot 7,197]

They can ban firearms anywhere they like and I won't care, unless it's on THIS planet!

[dayanx 1]

great, this machine kicked right into the spin cycle

[Twinsen 86]

Word now is that it was a WASR-10 in 7.62, stolen.

[ironhead7544 35]

Everyone in the mall at the time of the shooting should sue the mall. When they ban CC they put themselves at a higher level of liability. They are respondsible for a higher level of security. I avoid criminal safe zones, even gunshops that dont allow CC.

[dayanx 1]

Won't happen here in TX, they like CCL holders, they just don't let carrying security in

[DaGroaner 2]

Remember who it was that reported the whole story the next time you hear some dumb fuck call them Faux News.

 

The AP is still calling it an AK-47 in most of their reporting. MSM idiots.

Edited December 8, 2007 by DaGroaner

[G O B 3,516]

Racegal- I have had a couple different dogs over the years that bit neighborhood punks. Ol'Duke put 27 stitches in one of them. Fortunatly both times there were witnesses that the dogs were on my property and there were witnesses that the dog was attacted first. One father was screaming to the cop that he wanted the dog destroyed, the cop told him to shut the fuck up, and calmly asked me if I wanted to press tresspassing and assault on an animal charges against his son.

Being a nice guy I said no, just give me a copy of the police report so I can swear out a restraining warrant against the kid and his old man if they come around my place again. Even here in the liberal bastion of MD an animal is allowed to defend itself, as long as it is anywhere where it is legally entitled to be.

 

As far as this shooting goes - ONCE AGAIN a troubled youth is thrown out on the street because mental health care is expensive, and those in charge would rather spend money on other things. Like declaring gun-free killing zones to attract those troubled souls that should have been recieving help. We need to hold the petty burocrats that cut this boy's treatment off to account for their actions (and IN actions). AND sue the ass off of the mall owners and the asshats that made the laws that allowed them to declare a gun free killing zone.

[DaGroaner 2]

Sorry but I gotta call BS on an assertion made in this thread.

 

Sat 8 Dec 2007

$265,000 spent on treating mall killer

ANNA JO BRATTON AND NATE JENKINS IN OMAHA, NEBRASKA

 

STATE authorities spent $265,000 (£131,000) attempting to treat Robert Hawkins, the teenage gunman who killed eight people in a shooting rampage at a department store in Nebraska on Wednesday.

 

Hawkins spent four years in treatment centres, care homes and foster care after threatening to kill his stepmother in 2002.

 

Finally, in August 2006, social workers, the courts and his father agreed it was time for Robert Hawkins to be released - nine months before he turned 19 and would have been required to leave anyway.

 

On Thursday, while some of those who knew Hawkins called the massacre at the busy Omaha mall unexpected, not everyone was surprised.

 

"He should have gotten help, but I think he needed someone to help him and needed someone to be there when in the past he's said he wanted to kill himself," said Karissa Fox, who said she knew Hawkins through a friend. "Someone should have listened to him."

 

Todd Landry, the state director of children and family services, said court records do not show precisely why Hawkins was released. But he said if Hawkins should not have been set free, someone would have raised a red flag.

 

"It is my opinion, it was not a failure of the system to provide appropriate services," Mr Landry said. "If that was an issue, any of the participants in the case would have brought that forward."

 

After reviewing surveillance tape, a suicide note and Hawkins' last conversations with those close to him, police said they do not know - and may never know - exactly why Hawkins went to the Von Maur store at Westroads Mall and shot more than a dozen people.

 

But he clearly planned ahead, walking through the store, exiting, then returning a few minutes later with a gun concealed in a rolled-up sweatshirt he was carrying, authorities said.

 

Debora Maruca-Kovac, a woman who with her husband took Hawkins into their home because he had no other place to live, told the Omaha World-Herald that the night before the shooting, Hawkins and her sons showed her a semi-automatic rifle. She said she thought the gun looked too old to work.

 

Police believe Hawkins was using that AK-47 when he stormed out a third-floor lift at the store and started shooting.

 

Police said they have found no connections between the 19-year-old and the six employees and two shoppers he killed.

 

"The shooting victims were randomly selected," as was the location of the shooting, Omaha Police Chief, Thomas Warren said.

 

Acquaintances said that Hawkins was a drug user and that he had a history of depression. In 2005 and 2006, according to court records, he underwent psychiatric evaluations, the reasons for which Mr Landry would not disclose, citing privacy rules.

 

In May 2002, he was sent to a treatment centre in Missouri after threatening his stepmother. Four months later, a Nebraska court decided Hawkins' problems were serious enough that he should be under state supervision and made him a ward of the state.

 

He went through a series of institutions in Nebraska as he progressed through the system: months at a treatment centre and group home in Omaha in 2003; time in a foster care programme and treatment centre in 2004 and 2005; then a felony drug-possession charge later in 2005. Mr Landry said court records do not identify the drug.

 

The drug charge was eventually dropped, but he was jailed in 2006 for not performing community service as required.

 

On 21 August, 2006, he was released from state custody.

 

Under state law, Mr Landry said, wards are released when all sides - parents, courts, social workers - agree it is time for them to go. Once Hawkins was set free, he was on his own. He was not released into anyone's custody. "When our role is ended, we try to step out," said Chris Peterson, director of the state Department of Health and Human Services.

 

About an hour before the shootings, Hawkins called Maruca-Kovac and told her he had written a suicide note, Maruca-Kovac said. In the note, Hawkins wrote that he was "sorry for everything" and would not be a burden on his family anymore. More ominously, he wrote: "Now I'll be famous."

 

Mrs Maruca-Kovac said on CBS network's The Early Show, "I was fearful that he was going to try to commit suicide, but I had no idea that he would involve so many other families."

 

The shoppers killed were Gary Scharf, 48, of Lincoln, and John McDonald, 65, of Council Bluffs, Iowa. The employees killed were Angie Schuster, 36; Maggie Webb, 24; Janet Jorgensen, 66; Diane Trent, 53; Gary Joy, 56; and Beverly Flynn, 47, all of Omaha.

GUN CONTROL OFF AGENDA

 

ONCE again there has been a mass shooting in the United States. Once again there is no national outcry from any party for gun control.

 

The right to bear arms is fiercely defended as a constitutional right by large numbers of collectors, hunters and advocates of home security, cherished the way civil libertarians champion the right to free speech.

 

Yet the issue is controversial enough to draw in the US supreme court, which said last month it would review an appeals court ruling that struck down a 31-year-old ban on the private possession of handguns in Washington DC.

 

"Although people who favour increased gun control in the United States are a substantial majority, those who oppose it are far more intense in their opposition and far more likely to vote on the basis of that issue alone," said Bill Galston, senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

'I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE A BURDEN'

 

ROBERT Hawkins scrawled: "Just think tho I'm gonna be ******* famous," before he went on a shopping mall shooting spree, killing eight people and then himself.

 

His three-page message, released by police yesterday, reflected love for his friends and family and hatred for his random victims.

 

"I know everyone will remember me as some sort of monster but please understand that I just don't want to be a burden on the ones that I care for my entire life," he wrote. "I just want to take a few pieces of **** with me."

 

Hawkins left the note on Wednesday at the house where he lived, before he went to the Westroads Mall and opened fire in the Von Maur store.

 

The first page of the note was for his friends: "I love all of you so much and I don't want anyone to miss me just think about how much better you are off without me to support."

 

In the second page, addressed to his family, he wrote: "I've just snapped I can't take this meaningless existence anymore I've been a constant disappointment and that trend would have only continued."

 

He added "I love you mommy. I love you dad", and expressed love for several other people.

 

The third page was his will: "I'm giving my car back to my mom and my friends can have whatever else I leave behind."

 

Related topic

 

* Gun crime

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=707

 

This article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/internatio...m?id=1914352007

 

Last updated: 08-Dec-07 01:14 GMT

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Once again a mentally ill person goes on a shooting spree. Once again the Brits blame guns for it and not the shooter. Once again the shooter ILLEGALLY has the weapon (Stolen from a family member is still STOLEN).

 

Once again the cure for insanity is not mental help, it's gun bans.

 

Insane Legislation does NOT cure insanity.

 

 

No one mentions that the store is a gun free zone, no one knows if he picked the store because of it. Did he target the gun-free zone or did the simple fact that it's a gun free zone just allow him to kill more people before he stopped.

 

Either way, here's further proof that banning guns does nothing. Ban guns in a store and you're still not safe from the mentally deranged.

[dayanx 1]

so what WAS it allready? A WASR or a bubba'd up SKS?

[Bvamp 604]

the GB looks like a saiga to me. cant see it clear enough.