Well she clearly lied....or the newspaper report lied..... last night on CNN she clearly told Anderson Cooper that she didnt know that he had any guns and that he never showed her a gun.....

so where was the guy from texas when they really needed him.

Yes. It was illegal for him to purchase, own or posses a firearm, even a long gun.

It is my personal opinion, that if you are properly trained in the use of a firearm, and have a CCW, you should have your weapon on you for situations just like this.

Yes, it is easy to say that a CCW owning person would have had to have been in the right place at the right time to prevent this, but even if this unbalanced individual or anyone like him is stopped before killing or injuring even the last person, then that would be a good thing.

Bill

In Texas, it's 2% of the population. But Bill, it was a gun free zone. No CCW holder could have legally been on that property and armed. See this article about the gun free zones.

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

Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status

Thursday, December 06, 2007
By John R. Lott, Jr.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/329150...607_WEEK26.jpg AP

Robert Hawkins

The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.
A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.
But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.
Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?
Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads <HTTP: _extended="true" />Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.
<!-- QUIGO --><!-- QUIGO --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true"> /*<![CDATA[*/ var adsonar_placementId="1307847",adsonar_pid="144757" ,adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=190;adsonar_zh=200,adsonar_jv="ads.a dsonar.com"; qas_writeAd(); /*]]>*/ </SCRIPT>
The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.
Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."
There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.
When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost <HTTP: _extended="true" />8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.
Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?
Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.
No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.
Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.
People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.
All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.
In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.
The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.
The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.
John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.
<!-- QUIGO --><!-- QUIGO -->

hmm, that is one piece of news I did not catch red-beard.

I wouldn't be shopping there. I don't feel the need to give my hard earned $ to any organization of that nature.

Bill

Didnt hear about any "off duty police officer" who made a confrontation... will have to check that for facts as this article is obviously someone's opinion.

So... in effect, if everyone was allowed to walk around with guns...then someone would have stopped this shooter??

Flawed logic but it supports someones pov.
Bottom line: one would need to get a clear shot on the shooter and make an accurate shot without harming others in the area... in addition that person would have to be accounted for and surrender when the police arrive... which would cause a great deal of confusion and possibly more bloodshed.

A better solution would be to have trained, armed personel on the grounds of all public places such as malls, campus buildings, high schools etc. Note, trained security or police personel...not a bunch of gun owners taking the law into their own hands.

peace

The off duty cop was in Utah, not Nebraska.

You want WHAT?!? :eek:

redbeard, there is no sense in me commenting further.. except that every time one of these events occurs, these type of commentaries pop up. Im not saying that i have the solutions for anything.... it is just my personal opinion that if everyone were to walk around with a gun, personally id feel less safe than i do now... in a tragedy such as this, for someone to make the case that more guns would stop it sooner... im not at all convinced that this is an argument based in any factual basis and is without any concrete foundation....it simply is someone with an agendas opinion. peach

Are you kidding me? If everyone in that mall had had a gun, the gunman would never have chosen that place to shoot up. If everyone on an airplane had a gun, it would never get hijacked. Criminals and nuts only ever choose soft targets. You don't see people going to shooting ranges to carry out mass murder because they know they'd be dead after the first shot. In a "gun-free zone" they know they can shoot until they run out of ammo or cops with guns finally get to the scene - whichever comes first. None of these mass murders ever ends before more armed people arrive on the scene. Why would you want to make that take longer by not letting law-abiding people carry guns for protection? When's the last time you ever heard about a CCW person misusing a gun? Never ever happens.

Sure and we could call it "Russia" good idea.

LOL... OK.. and when people enter the plane they have to SWEAR "I am not a hijacker"...? or do they sign a statement where they swear that they will not hijack the plane...


oh and be careful looking the wrong way at someone...cause you will know that they have a gun...

When that happens call me and I will move to some island somewhere.

This thread is spinning out of control so I want to stop here. But I just ask that I get left out of this debate from here, and that no one spins my words around any further...Thx.

Which proves we need more gun laws, right? :rolleyes:

My turn to edit your post. I'd like to agree....you meet the most polite people on earth at a gun club firing range. NOBODY picks a fight...:D

I think McDonalds should be sued for that tragedy. Really, who gets fired from McDonalds? McDonalds is the place you work when there really is no other choice. Now, if McDonalds fired him, no wonder why the kid became nuts :p.

Aurel

I really have to agree with red-beard's article posted above. While I won't own a gun, I have no problem with other STABLE, US CITIZENS owning guns.If they can pass the right tests (which I hope in God's name is better than our driving tests) then they should be able to carry a concealed weapon. It shouldn't matter if I look at a CCW person wrong or not, they (I believe) know what's the right time to present their piece. Someone above mentioned people on planes. CCW does not equal a Mac10 or Uzi I believe. And it doesn't mean bolt cutters either. I'm not afraid of law abiding citizens with guns; I'm afraid of law breakers with guns. I fear for the day when only criminals have the guns.

Hmmmm....

http://www.isra.org/

I don't know about Nebraska, but when I lived in FL., we were told to just ignore the signs. The worst they could do was ask you to leave. They are allowed to post signs but the city, county and state have no rules about it if you have a CWP.

Those signs have the force of law in OH, but I don't believe anywhere else.