December 05, 2007

Nine Dead in Nebraska Mall Shooting

May God be with the families of the killed and wounded.

There really isn't a whole lot more to be said at this point, but I'd like to offer some clarification of media statements if that will help people process the story.

ABC News cites police as saying an SKS rifle was used in the shooting. The SKS is not an assault rifle, despite it being called that erroneously by some news outlets. One account attributed to ABC News claims that the shooter used a weapon with two magazines. This would throw the initial identification of the weapon as an SKS into doubt, as the overwhelming majority of SKS rifles use 10-round magazines permanently affixed to the weapon, though some variants do have the capability to use detachable magazines. If the rifle did use detachable magazines, the likelihood is greater that it was an AK-pattern rifle.

Both firearms are chambered for the 7.62x39 cartridge, typically firing an intermediate-power 123-grain .30-caliber bullet.

I'd caution readers not to make too much of accounts of a grenade being recovered from the parking lot of the same mall last week. The pineapple-style grenade casing was phased out decades ago, and the item recovered is more than likely just a novelty.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at December 5, 2007 11:42 PM

Lefty calls for more restrictions on gun ownership in 5... 4... 3...

Posted by: C-C-G at December 5, 2007 11:56 PM

The real question is, out of the hundreds of people in the mall- why did nobody return fire? Whether or not the lunatic legally owned or had the right to own the gun is irrelevant, criminals will get guns regardless of the law, it's the unarmed mass of consumers in the mall that really allowed this tragedy.

Posted by: BKT at December 6, 2007 09:02 AM

BKT- I'm told the mall was a "Gun-Free Zone".

Posted by: DaveP. at December 6, 2007 09:30 AM

Maybe we should start referring to "gun free zones" as "free fire zones". On Fox one of the news readers noted that by the time the police got there the shooting was over.

Posted by: MarathonMan at December 6, 2007 12:15 PM

No weapons and gun free zones are private designations, corporations and businesses do this so their employees cannot demand to revise HR policies to allow them to have weapons- if a store clerk shoots a customer, thats a corporate nightmare- most conceal carry permit holders will still carry in these zones, the risk they run is being asked to leave if weapon is discovered, the risk they do not run is having to stare at some lunatic like this with nothing but a rack of coats to hide behind

Posted by: BKT at December 6, 2007 02:16 PM

I'd appreciate it if, from now on, the media would publish the gun restrictions of the mall or campus where a shooting occurs, instead of just telling us about the state's gun laws. How about a headline that read, "Nine Dead in Gun-Free Zone Shooting?"

Posted by: Mike Harris, MAJ, USA at December 6, 2007 05:20 PM

THE GUN- the Gun has been parsed the Gun has been denounced the Gun has played a critical role in history. The Gun has been implemented for good the Gun has been abused for evil. With the Gun comes moral responsibility to better understand the Gun is to better understand history, and with the Gun protect your future.
This morning as I was having my first cup of coffee I turned on the television as I usually do and this is the first thing I heard Nine are dead Five where wounded two critically. All I could think of to my self was God not agene. This is another case if there would have been a few or even one good law abiding citizen Gun owner that fewer people would have died if none at all. I wish the entire lot of Gun hating groups would understand that they maybe abele remove the Gun from law abiding citizens but the facet remains bad ones WILL always fined a way to get a Gun. Also they said it was a SKS carbine assault rifle by witch the SKS is not by any definition. If you have handled one you would know what I meant. And on top of that they proceeded to show a diagram of a Winchester 94. Tragedies like this make my hart and sole turn to ice, Ignorance on top of stupidity like this make my blood boil .

Posted by: Desertbuck at December 6, 2007 06:02 PM

yes I am A bad speller

Posted by: Desertbuck at December 6, 2007 06:48 PM

what the hell is the benifit of giving permission for gun-carrying? I really don't know a gun can do anything but kill vivid living creatures. I am a foreigner,and know little about american culture. I wonder how important guns' status is in american culture.

Posted by: wangquga at December 7, 2007 06:17 AM
what the hell is the benifit of giving permission for gun-carrying? I really don't know a gun can do anything but kill vivid living creatures.

They're also quite good at killing drab, boring creatures, shooting up the armies of kings and dictators, and making sure that our elements of our government can never carry out a coup against the people or declare a dictatorship.

The Second Amendment recognizes the God-given right we have to provide for our own security.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 7, 2007 07:07 AM

An SKS is not an AK-47, An SKS can use high capacity mags and to the untrained eye look like an ak. They were built over 50 years ago and sell for about $99. If this country was not full of liberal, we would be able to carry a weapon and stop things like this from happening. This is what happens when the liberal government officers tells us how to raise children. Looks like time out really worked for this kid.

Posted by: Kid at December 7, 2007 01:47 PM

Those who are promoting MORE guns might want to think a little about facts and history instead of fanciful speculation. An example of widespread gun ownership: the American west in the 1800's. Result: sky-high murder rate. An example of strict gun control: modern-day Britain. Result: low murder rate. What other facts do you need? In the case of automatic weapons in particular, I don't see a need for them unless you like to see cops get murdered.

As for defending our rights and the Constitution, those are already half-gone thanks to the legal changes of the last few decades. Nobody with a gun did anything about it, nor will they if the trend continues. Thanks a lot, "tough guys." It doesn't matter how many guns you have when you are a moron who isn't paying attention when your rights are being abolished. Some people are more concerned about defending their right to own a gun than they are about defending the rights that those guns are supposed to protect.

On the question of the gun itself in this case, obviously there's been a lot of sloppy reporting regarding what was used. Even a short Google search would have cleared up the issue. I've never even touched a gun but even I know the difference between an SKS and an AK-47. I guess we'll know what it really was once we see the surveillance tapes.

Posted by: Nate at December 7, 2007 03:24 PM

You can tell from this photo that it's an AK-47 type rifle:;_ylt=AhoMsybdPCZp34PQT5F6V0lH2ocA#/071207/ids_photos_ts/r1590184548.jpg

Posted by: Nate at December 7, 2007 03:39 PM

Swiss have literally every gun in every home.. so where is their sky rocket murder rate? Canada has a decent population of gun owners.. where is their sky high murder rate?

Automatic weapons have been tightly control since the 1930s, yet at every chance the anti-gun side brings up this moot point about a class of weapons that are already heavily restricted and impossible to obtain. How many cops have been killed by "automatic" weapons in the last 30 years?

UK has always had a lower murder rate, period. uk/output/page40.asp

1996 was the date of the gun ban, yet years afterwards, murder rose despite your claims that gun control equated to lower murders.

All of the guns in the US is concentrated in rural and suburban America... so why do these areas generally have LOW murder figures compared to the inner city where gun control is typically favored and gun ownership is very low??

Why is it that a high percentage of the firearms are owned by middle-aged white male Americans, yet half of the murder rates victims are black males aged 14-24?? Being a young black male, you're 9 times as likely to then if you're a white male of the same age.

Posted by: Another Face at December 7, 2007 04:01 PM


Uh no you can't. It could very well be an SKS.

Posted by: Another Face at December 7, 2007 04:05 PM
An example of widespread gun ownership: the American west in the 1800's. Result: sky-high murder rate.

Well, that is factually, wrong, but at least we've established that what you know about firearms comes from Hollywood.

In the case of automatic weapons in particular, I don't see a need for them unless you like to see cops get murdered.

Please find the last time a murder was carried out with a legally-owned civilian machine gun, please. Far more people have been killed with automatic weapons fired by police.

You have a great grasp of reality. Not this one, of course...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 7, 2007 04:17 PM

Automatic weapons are obviously not "impossible to obtain" since this kid got one. In fact, a fairly large percentage of gun murders are committed with them. Please note that this doesn't mean I necessarily support the 1990's assault weapons ban, which basically said that "guns that look bad are illegal."

However, there are some valid points that you make about the trends in gun ownership vs. gun deaths.

Another article that drives home your point about the UK somewhat better (I hadn't seen this before):

Switzerland is an oddball and a bad example because guns are regulated there and they have universal conscription. Switzerland is, in a way, an argument for more gun control, not less.

You could, of course, tie the lower murder rate in the UK, in Europe in general and in Canada to the prevalence of the welfare state. Or their emphasis on rehabilitating criminals rather than punishing them. Or perhaps you have a different explanation that you'd like to share.

I stand by my own point that the claim that gun ownership protects our liberties is a complete farce since gun owners have no intention of protecting our liberties.

Posted by: Nate at December 7, 2007 04:31 PM

Wrong yet again, Nate. This was not an automatic weapon. The media was (once again) wrong to call this an AK-47. It was an AK-pattern semi-automatic. Same look, far different weapon.

Your "own point" is absurd, essentially asserting we should plot a coup every time we don't like a law.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 7, 2007 05:29 PM

My own point is that unless you plan to plot a coup, your blather about defending your rights is useless. If you don't plan to plot one, then don't talk as if you do. There is no way for your guns to protect these rights unless you are actually using them. That's like pulling a gun on an armed robber but not but not actually pulling the trigger.

As for your assumption that the gun is semi-automatic, this information comes from the same people who also thought it was an SKS. Not necessarily reliable. Although, I will give you that it is likely that they will find it to be a semi-automatic civilian version.

Posted by: Nate at December 7, 2007 05:41 PM

You're point is that you're quick to open your mouth about something you have little understanding of. It wasn't an "automatic" rifle in your/the media's defintion of automatic = machine gun.

Fairly large number commited with "automatic" weapons?

quote "The FBI's Supplemental Homicide
Reports show that 57% of all murders
in 1993 were committed with handguns,
3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns,
and 5% with firearms"

"automatic" being a misnomer anyway because "automatic" in firearm terminology means that the gun automatically chambers a round after being fired in comparison to breech loaded firearms, bolt action, and pump action.

Oh and that the VT shooter killed 31 people with PISTOLS. So the idea of this gun is too big and powerful or this gun is too small and concealable is nothing more then smoke and mirrors to get them ALL banned.

Control? Lets see.. he stole this weapon from his step father. VT shooter fell thru the legal cracks. The Columbine shooter broke 21 federal firearms laws when they obtained their firearms via a straw purchaser. Approximately 1000 deaths are caused by juvenile gangbangers who unlawfully obtain stolen handguns. Felons are barred from gun ownership, people addicted to controlled substances are barred.

How do we keep the wrong people from illegally obtaining guns? Strict Enforcement of laws already on the books? No. I KNOW, lets make MORE redundant firearms laws! These types of shootings are usually carried out by people who have clean records so what good would it be to have weapons buying permits like in Switzerland? Swiss do kill each other with firearms, just not at the record rates. They also don't have a huge drug problem in the inner city either.

Posted by: Another Face at December 7, 2007 07:08 PM

Thank you so much, Nate, for proving my earlier comment... the first one in this thread... correct.

It's so nice when your opponent is predictable.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 7, 2007 08:12 PM

Well there all jerks if your going to kill yourself, Kill yourself dont take it out on a bunch of innocent people such idiots schools should have atleast 1 officer in school and they shouldnt unlock
it dring the day unless its known who the person is

Posted by: Dont ask ! at December 11, 2007 11:07 AM