TexasCHLforum.com

Lykoi wrote: this kid was a walking time bomb and it was known by multiple people...

Lykoi wrote: It's going to be a great day that no one will know about when these guys are stopped before this can occur.. but the only way to do that is to have people be aware of these people and make decisions to protect the lives of others before going home and watching TV while ignoring the facts.

These things are frequently "obvious" in hindsight.

But it gets really tricky when you're thinking of taking peoples' freedom (either to buy or possess firearms or their freedom to run arould loose) away before they do any harm.

Lots of kids lose jobs and break up with girlfriends. Some even have falling outs with their parents and commit minor crimes. (Sometimes the parents themselves are fools, jerks, or worse.) But we can't confine everyone who fits that approximate description. If we did, we'd be locking up thousands of people who are no threat at all.

As it is, the kid wasn't eligible to buy a gun. And the people close to him did not know that he stole one. He could have bought it in a private sale, right? It's easy to see after the fact that something "should have been done". But not so easy before.

If we're not careful, we could end up with something like what they have in Canada, where before you can buy a gun you have to have people personally vouch for you in interviews with the police. You'll go to buy a gun and find out that because some crazy former friend or girlfriend trashed you, you get denied.

And since measures like that won't do any good in preventing crime, it is simply a step down the road towards a (near) total gun ban like they have in the UK.

Just heard that the shooter in this case was released from a mental institution 16 months ago and was living under that womans roof under the usual provisions accorded to other probation laden individuals...(i.e.: no alcohol or firearms made accessable to them)...

There was a report that the shooter had been seen showing with other kids in that home the SKS suposedly used in the shooting at the mall the night before...The "foster mother" clearly saw this and has stated as much...

Unfortunately, some people are going to be in a lot of trouble here as soon as this sinks in and is confirmed...

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Gun free zones are idiotic. All they do is facilitate mass shootings like this one. It's time they were abolished.

Worth repeating and I would add to idiotic....juvenile and idealistic...might even go so far as to say delusional.

Here's an account of how talking to management reasonably and rationally caused a mall to change its policy.

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3844/83/

LarryH wrote:Here's an account of how talking to management reasonably and rationally caused a mall to change its policy.

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3844/83/

that's an AMAZING story...

Ok so who here is ready to take on Grapevine Mills? I am not well spoken enough to successfully pull it off I don't believe.

RCP wrote:Ok so who here is ready to take on Grapevine Mills? I am not well spoken enough to successfully pull it off I don't believe.

Thats a great question...I can think of a couple of folks in this forum that would be excellent candidates to make the same approach and argument to the management of that facility...

But that decision is up to them...If they choose to take up that challenge...

Is the Grapevine Mills mall posted at EVERY DOOR?

Lykoi wrote:Is the Grapevine Mills mall posted at EVERY DOOR?

Last time I was there (~2 months) it wasn't.

Watched Fox 4 News last night. They actually aired a comment (I suspect submitted by one of our members) that pointed out the Omaha mall was a "gun free zone". It was also noted by the submitter that perhaps the carnage could have been reduced had at least some of the shoppers been armed (with appropriate CHL).

First coverage I've seen that points out (or at least airs the opinion that there may be) a flaw in the logic for gun free malls.

bpet wrote: First coverage I've seen that points out (or at least airs the opinion that there may be) a flaw in the logic for gun free malls.

A "flaw"?

It's more like a hole you could drive a truck full of guns through.

Are you or your ancestors British? Because that's an understatement worthy of Margret Thatcher herself.

I would submit that a bright 5 or 6 year old kid might ask, "Why would a bad guy bother to obey a sign if he's going to kill people?"

And the "adults" who authored the policy would have no valid response.

Not British, but do understate quite frequently.

I was simply trying to express what I saw as the attitude of the media. Not my attitude. Up to now, I've see nothing from the media that even suggests gun free zones are not the way to go.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

bpet wrote: First coverage I've seen that points out (or at least airs the opinion that there may be) a flaw in the logic for gun free malls.

A "flaw"?

It's more like a hole you could drive a truck full of guns through.

Are you or your ancestors British? Because that's an understatement worthy of Margret Thatcher herself.

I would submit that a bright 5 or 6 year old kid might ask, "Why would a bad guy bother to obey a sign if he's going to kill people?"

And the "adults" who authored the policy would have no valid response.

pointing out the obvious LOGICAL flaws in the thinking of people, who base their beliefs on emotion and fear, is like trying to use math to explain the boogie monster to a 3yr old...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
A "flaw"?

It's more like a hole you could drive a truck full of guns through.

Are you or your ancestors British? Because that's an understatement worthy of Margret Thatcher herself.

I would submit that a bright 5 or 6 year old kid might ask, "Why would a bad guy bother to obey a sign if he's going to kill people?"

And the "adults" who authored the policy would have no valid response.

Wow - getting a little slap happy around here!