Shooting at Oregon mall

[SPEMack618]

From what I've read and understand of mass shooting, while they do often occur at gun free zones, they more so seem to target what I would call soft targets.

Whereas people maybe carrying guns there, but physical security and a meaningful guard force are slim.

Glenn, you stated that mass shooters are influenced by the mass media portrayal of other rampage shootings.

Would a restricition on coverage of said shootings be in line with the whole don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater thing?

[Gunnut17]

I saw a story on the news today about this. They were demonstrating various ways to protect yourself from stray bullets, et cetera. It's great they are trying to keep people safe, but the fact that, during cover storys for all the recent mass shootings, there has been no mention of conceal carry at all. Colorado and Oregon, from my understanding, are pro-CCW. Why no mention of the one thing that truly could have prevented the loss of those lives..

That is, someone shooting this nutcase before he got to the food court. He had a gun, he was saying maniacal things, he was running, shouts 'self-defense' to me. Is there anything that spells out an inability to legally defend yourself and others this way?

[Glockstar .40]

1. clackamas town center doesnt have any postings suggesting its a gun free zone. although after this tragedy it probably will. unfortunately.

2.kraigwy im glad to hear your daughter is ok! i shop at that mall frequently as well.

3. i know im preachin to the choir but...carry 100% of the time where legally possible! you just never know if & when you will need it

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I am not in favor of censorship of reports except for common sense self-censorship.

While the effects may be real, such is a slippery slope as are gun restrictions.

Why have 30 round mags or why let the press report true things?

It's the BOR. There are dangers in both but the greate good prevails.

[kilimanjaro]

Whether or not the mall was a Gun Free Zone is immaterial. There were perhaps 10,000 shoppers in there, and the odds are only a few of them were armed, and even less that they were in proximity to the shooter.

[Double Naught Spy]

From what I've read and understand of mass shooting, while they do often occur at gun free zones, they more so seem to target what I would call soft targets.

Well yeah, this is just plain smart. If you goal is to kill people, going after those that are mostly likely to defeat you quickly (unless they are your specific target) means likely not making your goal. However, despite numerous police station shootings and attacks on police officers, armored cars, and the like, much or most of America is a pretty soft target. It is much harder to find hardened targets to shoot up than soft targets here in America. I would hazard a guess that 99% or more of small businesses don't have armed security, >80% of not-for-profits and >80% of major companies don't have adequate armed security or don't have any at all. When they do, it is at specific facilities only and not throughout the corporations.

Glenn noted this earlier, but a LOT of these shootings are not random location shootings. Some are, but a lot are specific to problems that the shooter has with people at the given location. Typical of these are school and workplace shootings. When an employee at company X gets into trouble at work, is picked on by coworkers, or gets fired, he doesn't drive cross town and shoot up company Q. He goes back to where he had the problem at company X. Harris and Klebold and numerous other school shooters who were students shot up their own schools, not somebody else's school.

In short, the targets aren't chosen for being soft per se in most of the cases. Softness seems to have virtually nothing to do with the targeted location relative to the reason for wanting to kill peoplee at the location.

[Mr. James]

Well said, Mr. Meyer.

The "fire in a theatre" idea doesn't equate here. In the case of "fire in the theatre," the idea is preventing one's provoking a life-threatening cattle stampede in an exigent situation. In the case of media reportage, you're talking about third-party reporting after the dust has settled. Limiting that right is stomping the First Amendment into the dust. I despise the main stream media with a burning loathing that defies description. But I'll never subscribe to curbing their ability to lie freely. The truth will out.

[Nanuk]

Kraig, I am glad your daughter is well, that she may receive your lecture.

[Gaerek]

I don't think you have proof of this claim. I am fairly confident that most mass shootings do not occur in gun free zones. They most often occur in non-public areas and garner little press coverage. They actually happen quite regularly and don't even get much play in the media or here.

What you're referring to would be domestic violence. In the small town in Alaska that I used to live, there was a "mass murder" (first of it's kind there) a few years ago. 18ish Y.O. kid snapped, and took a kitchen knife to his family. Killed three, wounded another. Even though the number would make it a mass murder, it was labeled as domestic violence.

What I'm talking about is public mass shootings, where the victims and shooter have no more than an acquaintance status (and more likely, no relationship at all). It's a tough subject. I would never say that mass killings only occur where guns aren't allowed. It's simply not true. But many do. The Norway killing, for example, is a great example. He chose that target mainly because he knew there would be no resistance. The man who shot up the Jewish Community Center in 1999 chose that target because he knew there would be little to no resistance. He had two or three other targets in mind, but was afraid people might have a means of fighting back, or there was security. The wikipedia page on the shooting says "...security measures presented too much of a problem."

I guess my real point isn't that mass shootings only occur in places that don't allow guns. They do happen with frequency in those areas, either coincidentally, or purposely. My real point is the point most of us are aware of...no gun areas aren't safer, and are in actuality more dangerous than areas where guns are allowed.

This is the same reason Germany didn't invade Switzerland during WWII, and Japan didn't invade the mainland US after Pearl Harbor (they probably could have done it with the Pacific fleet decimated the way it was). They knew citizens of these countries had weapons in their homes and the last thing they wanted to do was get into an insurgent war.

EDIT:

Harris and Klebold and numerous other school shooters who were students shot up their own schools, not somebody else's school.

Something to think about and consider (since there's no way to tell). Would those two monsters have shot up their school if there had been a policy that allowed teachers and administrators with carry permits to carry on the premises?

Personally, I'd like to think not. Keep in mind, they cowardly killed themselves when they knew they were about to be taken. It's proven time and time again (yes, there are always exceptions...I know) that as soon as crazy people meet resistance, one of two things happen.

1) They stop what they're doing and surrender/take their own life

2) They focus their attention on the resistance, allowing innocents to get out of the way.

Either way, innocent lives are saved.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sorry but I can't let gun cliches go by. If we argue from cliches we lose credibility.

We have shooters who have thought about armed response but we have clear ones who don't. The samples and unknown cases make it hard to quantify deterrence, esp. against those who are sucidial - 40% at least. We can't know who was deterred but we certainly know those who weren't.

Second, the Switzerland and Japanese examples are more complex than a gun cliche.

1. The Japanese had no known plans to invade the USA mainland. The supposed source cannot be proven to be such. The Japanese plans are well known and I've read some scholarly texts on such. The threat was never real or even planned. To quote a suspect quote makes us look less than credible.

2. Switzerland - Switzerland did plan for resistance but the real reason for no invasion were many fold:

a. The Swiss collaborated with the Nazis - it is very well known. They gave Hitler most everything he wanted. Thus the German felt no need to invade. They did have invasion plans if needed and they would have conquered them with a bit of trouble. It would be a diversion and not worth it since they got everything they wanted.

b. The real military threat was the destruction of Swiss tunnels to Italy that would negatively impact German forces in Italy. That was more important than Swiss armed resistance in their calculations.

3. Columbine was supposed to be a sophisticated bombing. The shootings happened when the bombs failed. Armed teachers don't deter bombers.

Antigunners are prone to hyperbole. We shouldn't be.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Please note that we are holding off discussion of the CT school shooting, please see:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=508968

We need more info.

[Apom]

Just FYI.. the violence of mass shootings is obviously increasing. No [anti-gun person] can say its not. No NRA lover can say its not.

Both groups need to sit down and worry about solving this growing problem instead of worrying about legislation to control it ....or the rising costs or low stocks of magazines and bolt carriers.

[pax]

Apom,

Just FYI, the violence of mass murders is not increasing. Neither anti-gunners nor pro-rights people can say that it is.

I base my assertion on the data in Grant Duwe's book Mass Murder in the United States, which tracks mass homicides going back to 1900. Despite common perception, mass murders have been common throughout American history, and have closely followed the trends for other types of crime.

Incidentally, the most deadly attacks have used weapons other than guns.

What did you base your assertion on?

pax

[BGutzman]

Both groups need to sit down and worry about solving this growing problem instead of worrying about legislation to control it ....or the rising costs or low stocks of magazines and bolt carriers.

Apom - no amount of speech and negotiating is ever going to stop evil, nor is any amount of laws. The people performing these acts don't care what the law says and neither will they care about some negotiation. The only way to stop evil is with lawful use of force, hence the 2A.

I totally want to stop the BGs too, but short of some North Korean style enforcement there is no way to stop these things other than to react and hopefully have a plan by the business, school or agency involved... The blame for these incidents fall squarely on the shoulders of those who committed the crime and those who voted in such a way that eventually the right to bear arms in whatever place wasn't allowed or socially acceptable... I understand lawful carriers aren't cops and shouldn't act as cops but at least some of the time lawful actions of carriers can and would stop some of this death... IMHO this blood is on the hands of the antis as well as the villains.. Talk is just talk on these types of issues and rarely accomplishes more than the waste of breath, you cant negotiate with terrorist, insane or just plain evil...

[hardworker]

Fingerpointing like in the post above is why politics in this country is so screwed up. The moderates who are actually interested in enacting meaningful change for everyone's benefit are drowned out by those on the extreme end calling the opposite side a terrorist or a communist.

This is a national tragedy, and those pointing fingers on either side ought to be ashamed. They haven't even finished counting the dead yet.

[Ben Towe]

The bottom line is that people who do things like this are evil and insane. No amount of legislation, regulation, or discussion will make any difference. If they can't use guns, they will use explosives. Or knives, or poison gas, or any multitude of other things a madman can use to inflict harm.

The only answer to a gunman is another gunman, if you will, who works within the law. That's us, folks. That's why YOU CARRY YOUR SIDEARM EVERYWHERE THAT YOU LEGALLY CAN. Maybe you can't stop it, but you can be caught trying. A mass shooter can only be stopped by force or by his own hand, and only the use of force is within our control.

This is in reference to the mall shooting and other public shootings. The most recent shooting in Connecticut is somewhat different and the moderators have asked us to withhold discussion of it at this time. I agree with that decision and will abide by it. Keep the families and victims in your thoughts and prayers. Most of those involved were just little children.

[Sparks1957]

deleted because of duplication

[Sparks1957]

The bottom line is that people who do things like this are evil and insane. No amount of legislation, regulation, or discussion will make any difference...
The only answer to a gunman is another gunman, if you will, who works within the law. That's us, folks

I totally agree with you, Ben. Maybe it's time to seriously confront the matter of having locations where guns cannot be legally carried, as they seem to chosen as target areas by those crazy folks.

A legal carrier at least stands a chance of terminating the violence when it might continue otherwise.

[pax]

I was wrong to fan the flames here. Mea culpa.

We are holding off discussion of the CT school shooting, please see:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=508968

Closed for today. Maybe we'll reopen this later. Maybe not.

pax