Google News links about Omaha mall shootings
Google News results for search term "No Guns sign"
"Authorized Journalists." No wonder we trust them so.
UPDATE: I'm not the only one who noticed...
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The mall was in Omaha, Nebraska, not Oklahoma.
Just a typo on my part, LD, corrected, thanks--the link goes to Google's news stories on yesterday's mall shooting.
It gets better. CNN is now reporting it as an AK-47 assault rifle that uses SKS 7.66 ammo.
No, that's not my typo.
EVERYONE knows that 7.66 is used only for killing humans, while the 7.62 is a good hunting round.
Maybe the Brady Bunch will make a call to ban any rifle that uses a non-detachable 10-round magazine. That ought to stop all the evil people.
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. Maybe we could ban “gun-free zones”?
Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property, and that such signs carry the full weight of law. Obviously Robert Hawkins was hampered by his inability to read the sign, else he never would have done this terrible thing.
The last time the Russian military used an SKS was in the mid 1950s. Maybe we have to ban all Soviet Cold War era weapons to live in peace and harmony?
But in all seriousness, considering that it's illegal to carry in that mall, what if you WERE carrying yesterday in this mall and saw this guy firing off 30 rounds of 7.62? Would you attack and try to save lives, while risking jail time and possible death from a superior round? Would you try to approach and give him a point-blank? Would you run for cover and debate the issue the next day? Genuinely tough questions for us Sheepdogs.
My only considerations at that point, Mark, would be all tactical. Could I get in a position to stop him, how best to do it, how to do it in the least amount of time, how to avoid risk that would prevent me from accomplishing the mission and how to disappear before the cops got there.
The last consideration would probably not be doable, but would be worth a thought. However, even at the risk of jail time, there was a more important moral issue that is in contradiction to any of the legal issues. How many saved lives are worth the risk? For me the answer is any. Others may have a higher price. But in the end, I must live with my conscience much more closely than any condemnation by others who have not the courage to understand that liberty is risky and sometimes we must risk to maintain it and ours and others security from marauders.
One must also realize that risk means sometimes you lose. If you can't risk without a guarantee of success you will not long remain free. Those not willing to accept the risk of losing are also those not willing to risk success.
I deeply respect SA's assessment and reasoning. I've come to a different conclusion, however.
If I were in Nebraska, carrying a concealed weapon, and a shooting incident like this occured, I could not in good conscience lay my life on the line for people who could easily defend themselves but chose not to.
It's a free country, and I believe in freedom of choice. It was the choice of the unfortunate victims to go unarmed, and they have paid for that choice. I do not regard it as my moral or legal responsibility to relieve them of the consequences of their decisions and actions.
Now, if I was in a hospital, school, nursing home, or other location filled with truly helpless victims, that's an entirely different story. In that situation I would instantly march toward the sound of the muskets, and engage the enemy in battle even at the cost of my own life.
I hope I've made the difference clear without alienating the people here whom I profoundly respect.
Lee,
Personally, I fully understand, and there are days that I would be slipping out of such a situation with you, and days that I would be backing up Straightarrow. However, the thing is that whatever I did, I would have chosen that course of action, with all the risks inherent to that choice. You see, I am a citizen, a free man. I do not fit in Col. Cooper's analogy. I am not one of the sheep, I do not follow the flock and I do not depend on others to defend me or mine. I am not a wolf, I do not prey upon others, nor do I aggress against others. However, I am not a sheepdog. I am not employed to protect the flock in any manner. I am a free citizen, a free agent if you will. To keep to the analogy, I am a wolfhound, or a mastiff. If a wolf is foolish enough to target me, or mine, I shall defend myself, to his detriment. If a wolf targets sheep near me, I may, or may not defend them.
One problem that I have always had with Col Cooper's analogy, is that the sheepdogs prey upon the sheep, just in a slightly more controlled manner than the wolves, and I prey upon no-one. Another problem is that the sheepdogs only see sheepdogs, sheep and wolves. If you do not have a badge you are not a sheepdog, and if you are not a sheepdog, yet are armed you are not a sheep. That leaves only one option in their minds.
So, to get back to the original point, if I was carrying a revolver, I might intervene. If I was carrying a semi-automatic I would not intervene unless I, or those under my protection, was directly threatened, and I would then expect to go directly to jail.
Post a Comment