Those are all excellent pieces of advice Bob and would serve folks quite well.

Me personally, I'm gonna shoot the bastard, but that's 'cuz I have a gun and minimal sense.

Cordially,

Uncle J

I'm with Uncle Jimbo...but it seems the damn Mall was a Gun Free Zone (worked real well, didn't it?)
Like the Lubby's shootings here that made for the change in carry laws, any law abiding carry permit holder was to leave their weapon behind to join the herd.

Most criminal types see "Gun Free Zone" as "No One Can Shoot Back Zone."

Thanks for these terrific suggestions which I am forwarding on to family and friends.

Yep. Derndest things happen in those gun free zones. I try to stay out of 'em. Strange doings afoot. I'm with Jimbo.

I just did some research and discovered my home state is pretty easy to get a concealed carry permit in, all you really need is to have completed a gun safety course.

Now, where's the nearest NRA office?

May I copy this and pass it along in an email to family and friends? I'll be sure to include the link.

Hmmm.

I'm with Instapundit. He's advocating that the survivors and the victim's families sue the hell out of the mall owners. This is because they prevented people from legally carrying firearms in the mall, which may have allowed someone to shoot the little bastard before the death count went up, and protecting themselves.

If you're a corporation and you disarm me, then it's *your* responsibility to protect me and it's your liability if you don't.

Now that I like!

You Dirty Harry/Rambo wannabes make me laugh.

Having a gun wouldn't have made a dime's worth of difference in this situation, since many of the dead/wounded were either ambushed as the shooter stepped out of the elevator or shot sniper-style as the shooter shot down through an atrium at people on a lower floor.

And CY, the media is reporting the shooter had an AK-47. Care to change your earlier thread about it being an SKS rifle?

Are you going to argue that the AK-47 isn't an "assault" weapon?

yeah right,

The media can call this an AK-47 all they want to, but there is a huge difference between a real AK-47 and an AK-47 pattern rifle, which is what this was. There is ZERO indication this was an AK-47, AKM, or other fully-autmoatic variant, which, by definition, it must be to be a real assault rifle.

Odds are (statistically-speaking) it was a WASR-10 or a MAK-90, not that you know what those are.

Also learn to read. I never said it was an SKS, I said the original media claim said it was an SKS, which I disputed because SKS rifles typically have a fixed mag, and even in the early reports they were talking about multiple magazines. Once again, I was right.

R.I.F., sparky.

1- If one of us armed civilians had been nearby, the whole issue could've been resolved- as it was the last time a shooter tried to do a mass murder in a mall. "Yeah right" could've done NOTHING- except try to shift blame and fail to take responsibility.

2- The media reports lots of things. Reporters are fairly ignorant about firearms and firearm-related issues, which does not stop them from acting like they're experts.

3- A civilian-legal AK is NOT an 'assault weapon', despite what teh aforementioned firearms-ignorant bunch wants to think. An assault weapon is select-fire, lwhich means that it can fire at full-automatic. There is no evidence that the shooter in this case did anything but semi-auto. Calling a chair a table doesn't make it any less a chair.

4- You Sarah Brady wannabees make ME laugh- always with the same script, same ignorance about any of the issues involved, same desire to substitute sneer for truth and lies for reality.

What if you tried to stop a mass murderer by shooting him, and in the chaos, another gun owner saw you shooting? He might think YOU'RE the madman (how would he know?), and he'd then shoot you...

Just a thought.

What if you tried to stop a mass murderer by shooting him, and in the chaos, another gun owner saw you shooting?

You are far more likely to be shot by a police officer than concealed carry holder. There has been only once instance that I am aware of where two both CCW-permit holders drew firearms when a bad guy was on the loose, and they worked together to subdue the suspect and held him till uniformed officers arrive.

I think this falls into the realm of how collected the CCW-holders are. I think many, if not most are shooting enthusiasts, and could tell "friend from foe" based upon a number of variables, ranging from physical characteristics, mannerisms, and posture, to the difference different weapons make.

In this instance, I think if two CCW holders had been in the store where most of the victims were found and one saw the other firing at the suspect, he would immediately know the difference in sound between a rifle and a fellow handgun shooter, and he would not likely fire at the other CCW holder.

Not scientific by any stretch, of course, but I'd be interested to hear what CCW holders have to say.

So what you're saying is that I should run when someone shoots at me? Wow, that's some valuable advice. Thanks a lot.

So what you're saying is that I should run when someone shoots at me?

Well, you could always just stand there and lecture the shooter about "gun free zones" in malls and such... if you talk fast you might even get a complete sentence out before he blows your head off.

So what you're saying is that I should run when someone shoots at me? Wow, that's some valuable advice. Thanks a lot.

See Erik? That's the beauty of free will. I can give you good advice about how to get out of the line of fire and out of the mall through less-used exits that you probably would have never thought of on your own, but you're free to distill that advice down into absurd, meaningless elements that you will then ignore.

By all means, do it your way.

I think this falls into the realm of how collected the CCW-holders are. I think many, if not most are shooting enthusiasts, and could tell "friend from foe" based upon a number of variables, ranging from physical characteristics, mannerisms, and posture, to the difference different weapons make.

So you are saying that CCW permit holders profile each other. Suppose the other CCW permit holder is, gasp!, a dirty, presumably-jihad loving Ay-rab? Should I shoot the guy who is shooting or should I shoot the guy who is obviously about to succumb to Sudden Jihad Syndrome? And suppose the CCW permit holding guy who merely LOOKS like he will succumb to Sudden Jihad Syndrome is actually a patriotic, upstanding American? Who do I shoot?

Oh choices, choices...

Suppose the other CCW holder is a really a Plutonian, come to take revenge for our demoting of Pluto from planet status!

Or, better yet, suppose that he's a straw man!

Or better yet, since crazy white boys with guns and explosives have killed way more people in the US than crazy Arab boys with planes, how about we round up all the white boys, send them to Gitmo and water board them all until they tell us where they keep their AK-47 knock-offs and promise not to be crazy anymore?

You must think this is a straw man contest, sir.

If and when you post something reasonable, I will probably--no guarantees--reply reasonably. As long as you keep posting absurdities, however, I'll just get more and more absurd myself.

Your move.

Why is it absurd? Is it or is it not true that crazy white boys with guns and explosives has killed more Americans than crazy Arabs with planes? Is it true or is it not true that you are much more likely to be killed doing something mundane, like driving down the street to work or of a heart attack while eating a hot fudge sundae than by a crazy white boy in a shopping mall or a in a terrorist attack? If it is true that crazy white boys have killed more (and it certainly is true), why aren't we cracking down on them even more strenuously than crazy Arabs?

Who is being absurd? Not me.

It's absurd because you're conflating those killings that were done in defense of others--like protecting the world from having to declare "sieg heil" to a flag with a swastika--with those done in naked aggression, like those committed by the people who did proclaim "sieg heil."

Therein lies the absurdity, and you're either too stupid to see it yourself, or you think I am.

Wait. The crazy white boy who shot up a mall in Omaha was defending the world from Nazis? Timothy McVey was defending the world from Nazis when he blew up the Federal Courthouse in OK City?

Now I understand.

And since when has the phrase "Seig Heil" replaced the phrase "Allah Huwa Akbar?"

See, there ya go, conflating issues again, in order to build your straw man.

By the way, why limit the Arab death toll to just those who flew planes into buildings? Why not add in all the deaths caused by Arabs? It's obvious, because that would cause your straw man to fall apart.

As a straw-man builder, I give you a B+. As a debater, an F-.

To calipygian,blacks with illegal weapons kill far more people than "crazy white boys",and to yea right's comments, an AK-47 and SKS fire the same round 7.62x39,and an assault weapon is any weapon one chooses to assault another with,be it a sharp stick or a butter knife up the nose,the term assault weapon is a scary word used by the media to further thier anti-gun agenda.

1- If one of us armed civilians had been nearby, the whole issue could've been resolved