Omaha Mall Redux
Joe's Crabby Shack has been carrying some in depth coverage of the Omaha Mall shooting incident. A bit of a debate has erupted not only in my comments section of late, but also in other comments sections all over the blogosphere as to whether a determined, properly equipped and capable citizen could have made a difference in this situation.
Joe is carrying the sequence of events as seen from the perspective of someone who was there when the shooting was happening. Take a little time and follow the link above and read this man's account.
This gentleman paints a picture of being able to have taken the assailant down, if he had been properly armed to do so. He describes the shooter being a short distance away and in silhouette. Since the event and I surmise mainly out of survivor's guilt he purchased similar targets and practiced at similar ranges and claims to have proficiently placed lead on target.
Some in my comments section seemed to portray the belief that we should simply accept these sort of events as a price of freedom. Further there were attempts to discount the motivating effect that the news media has when they glorify these assailants with unceasing media attention.
Neither is true. Those statement portray a person who is resigned and conditioned to accept mediocrity.
We do not need to stand by and accept the death of those around us. Further we do not need any special training to lend aid. Consider if you will the shooter himself. He was nothing more than a teen. He certainly did not have any special training to prepare him for what he did, and yet every target he engaged (including himself) he killed.
Third parties regularly step in and aid in times of need in other ways... What would be said of a person who witnessed a rape and simply walked away without helping? What would you think of a person who saw a child being beaten who did not intervene? Should people simply look the other way when a neighbor has a car accident and needs first aid? I hope you see the point I am attempting to make. Good people help others. Expecting people to do otherwise is foolish.
The next point I wanted to address was this... It appears that this kid stole the weapon he used from someone else, his step-father. A good many are calling for the gun owner to answer for the crimes committed with his firearm. That is simple lunacy. Would you punish an automobile owner if his vehicle was stolen and used in the commission of a crime?
Further there are calls for the kid's parents to answer for the actions of their child. While I could understand that if parents were the sole influence on their children, but as we all know, our children have the liberal minions meddling in their mind from a very early age; planting ignorant notions and sewing seeds of discontent.
I've seen the difference in what my children are being taught at school and what I was taught. You know something? Sure our teachers still spanked us in class... Sure, my 6th grade teacher was a survivor of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis who referred to persons of Japanese descent as "nips", "Japs" or "slant-eyed gooks" in front of us... And no one would have thought twice about any of us kids carrying a gun to school (in fact they had hunter safety and marksmanship classes at the elementary school!) but we certainly didn't have all these massed shootings back then. We didn't have open gang warfare in the streets to the extent that we do now in our inner cities either. So perhaps there's something wrong with what they are being taught.
Oh, and one final thing to point out that's posted over at Joe's... All of the signs banning weapons have mysteriously been removed by the mall operators. I wonder why that might be... Could it be that they are concerned that someone might sue because they were denied the right to defend themselves or could it possibly be that they finally determined that such signs are indeed no defense against deranged, determined assholes?
Joe is carrying the sequence of events as seen from the perspective of someone who was there when the shooting was happening. Take a little time and follow the link above and read this man's account.
This gentleman paints a picture of being able to have taken the assailant down, if he had been properly armed to do so. He describes the shooter being a short distance away and in silhouette. Since the event and I surmise mainly out of survivor's guilt he purchased similar targets and practiced at similar ranges and claims to have proficiently placed lead on target.
Some in my comments section seemed to portray the belief that we should simply accept these sort of events as a price of freedom. Further there were attempts to discount the motivating effect that the news media has when they glorify these assailants with unceasing media attention.
Neither is true. Those statement portray a person who is resigned and conditioned to accept mediocrity.
We do not need to stand by and accept the death of those around us. Further we do not need any special training to lend aid. Consider if you will the shooter himself. He was nothing more than a teen. He certainly did not have any special training to prepare him for what he did, and yet every target he engaged (including himself) he killed.
Third parties regularly step in and aid in times of need in other ways... What would be said of a person who witnessed a rape and simply walked away without helping? What would you think of a person who saw a child being beaten who did not intervene? Should people simply look the other way when a neighbor has a car accident and needs first aid? I hope you see the point I am attempting to make. Good people help others. Expecting people to do otherwise is foolish.
The next point I wanted to address was this... It appears that this kid stole the weapon he used from someone else, his step-father. A good many are calling for the gun owner to answer for the crimes committed with his firearm. That is simple lunacy. Would you punish an automobile owner if his vehicle was stolen and used in the commission of a crime?
Further there are calls for the kid's parents to answer for the actions of their child. While I could understand that if parents were the sole influence on their children, but as we all know, our children have the liberal minions meddling in their mind from a very early age; planting ignorant notions and sewing seeds of discontent.
I've seen the difference in what my children are being taught at school and what I was taught. You know something? Sure our teachers still spanked us in class... Sure, my 6th grade teacher was a survivor of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis who referred to persons of Japanese descent as "nips", "Japs" or "slant-eyed gooks" in front of us... And no one would have thought twice about any of us kids carrying a gun to school (in fact they had hunter safety and marksmanship classes at the elementary school!) but we certainly didn't have all these massed shootings back then. We didn't have open gang warfare in the streets to the extent that we do now in our inner cities either. So perhaps there's something wrong with what they are being taught.
Oh, and one final thing to point out that's posted over at Joe's... All of the signs banning weapons have mysteriously been removed by the mall operators. I wonder why that might be... Could it be that they are concerned that someone might sue because they were denied the right to defend themselves or could it possibly be that they finally determined that such signs are indeed no defense against deranged, determined assholes?
Labels: Commentary, Current Events, Other Bloggers, RKBA
posted by G-Man at 1:46 AM
|
<< Home