Omaha Mall shooting - why didn't all the people with handguns stop it from happening?

Question

A gunman in an Omaha shopping mall shot and killed 9 people today. Yet, Nebraska is a "will issue" state - a permissive stance towards issuing permits to carry concealed weapons.

Gun advocates always say that these types of permit laws stop violent crime. Whenever a shooting occurs in a place with restrictive gun control laws they say "If they allowed concealed weapons, this wouldn't have happened" (See Virginia Tech mass murder).

So, gun advocates, why didn't all those Nebraskans with concealed weapons stop this guy from murdering people?

It seems like people's main answer is that permissive gun laws cannot be expected to stop violent crime.

Thank you

Mike, you spelled "generous" incorrectly.

Dinamuk, I am not at all happen. I am angry that once again, the gun lovers in our society have allowed 9 innocent lives to be taken so they they can indulge thier fetish.

Russell, when was the last time you heard of someone using a molotov cocktail for a mass murder? Funny how they always seem to choose guns.

Answer 1

Double standard noted.

"Gun advocates always say that these types of permit laws stop violent crime. Whenever a shooting occurs in a place with restrictive gun control laws they say "If they allowed concealed weapons, this wouldn't have happened" (See Virginia Tech mass murder). "

I would tell a person who used that argument that if the authorities had known that the Virginia Tech killer had mental problems, they would have never sold him a gun, as it is against the law over there. That is a common sense gun control law.

Cons don't seem to want any kind of regulation at all. We need a driver license to drive and need to have our vehicles inspected and registered every year, but somethin as dangerous as a gun should be completely unregulated?

Answer 2

I live in Omaha, and work in a place that has "NO handguns allowed" signs all over the place,as does the mall. These signs are the ridiculous right of the companies involved to try to "protect" their customers from people that don't care about laws anyway. I do agree that if the mall DID NOT attempt to regulate concealed weapons, maybe a few less people would have died.

Have a great night, anyway.

2nd Amendment does not mean that we are allowed to wear sleeveless shirts, by the way.

Answer 3

The obvious answer would be because there probably weren't any gun-holders in the mall at the time -- which could be correct, but hear me out:

I live in the state of Kansas -- a pro-gun state -- and even if you have a gun-permit, you would get in a helluva lot of trouble if you entered a mall with a gun. In almost every public place (especially highly-populated shopping centers) they have signs that look like the typical no-smoking signs, only with a gun instead of a cigarette. And if you were caught in a store with a no-gun sign, you would be hit with a HEFTY fine.

I think you see what I'm getting at. Even if there happened to be a permissible gun-owner in the store, more than likely, they would have left their firearm in their vehicle.

Answer 4

Short answer is, there was probably nobody there with a gun, because its considered deviant to have a gun in a public place... yet when someone that is a real threat does it, that person doesn't seem to be concerned about following societies norms... imagine that. The same can be said in cities with heavy gun control though, why are shootings happening in those states? If gun control works, why are there still high crime rates in those places? No system is perfect, but the thing is, by outlawing guns, you wont keep those that break the law from getting them, and using them. While law abiding citizens have their rights taken away from them.

Answer 5

You can't stop a sicko with an Agenda,they have the same right as the rest of us to harm or help other people its their choice. That is the risk of living in a Free Society.Which by the way,I would take over a totally controlled Facist Socety,that can choose to go door to door, when ever they want, and take who they want away .Never to be heard from again.What are we supposed to do give up all our rights to Big Brother.You Liberal pacifist will give up your rights because you are sissys with sick stomachs, yet love Reality shows Like Queer eye for the Straight Guy.The Guy was probably a Mental patient released because he had a right to be in society. For all we know not even a U.S. citizen.I doubt he had a right to carry permit .God forbid we hold a man in the hospital against his will. InsteadTrust him to take the Medication if he is on any on an outpatient basis.After all Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

Answer 6

The city of Omaha,NE has just started issuing concealed carry permits in 2003 and the number of permits is very very low for a city with 309,000 people.If he didn't have a gun he would've used molotov cocktails or something like that.Do you suggest we outlaw gasoline and matches along with the guns?

Answer 7

I'm not sure about Omaha, but here in Minnesota the malls all have signs posted banning weapons, even with a conceal and carry permit. You, my little liberal fool, are really reaching on this one. It really doesn't matter if you like guns or not, I will not force you to have one, even if the law said I could make you do so, THAT is freedom. The Bill of Rights, that wonderful document that all the states and their leaders got together and demanded before they would ratify the constitution, is all about the rights of the individual, not any group, not even this "group" that libs have "interpretted" as being the militia. Look up the definition of militia from more than the official democrats handbook on deception and you will find that all around the world, throughout hundreds of years of history, militia is described as non-governmental individuals joining together to fight for a cause. Taken only in the context of the time period in which the bill of rights was written, the militia were the free white males in each state that were not members of the army. These men did not join the military, nor where they under the command of the President when we elected one, unlike the national guard you presume to be a militia, which is under direct command of the President, with the only concession being that the state names the commanding officer of the unit. You do not know your facts, your history, or your rights or mine, so please do not presume to deny me mine.

Answer 8

An automatic weapon and a hand gun are very different. I think this whole thing is a travesty. Automatic weapons do not belong in the hands of the public. I can sort of kind of understand a regular handgun, but to bring it to a mall? I don't know. Personally, I want a phaser set on stun permanently and I imagine if one day such things were real gun advocates would scramble to get them but set on kill.

Answer 9

Contrary to your misguided beliefs, those that carry concealed weapons are not always armed nor do they walk around looking for a reason to pull their concealed weapon.

Criminals and the like will always have guns regardless of how many laws are in place.

To answer your question - probably because they knew that if they did take action a crazed bleeding heart Liberal would side with the criminal against them and they would be punished for saving lives instead of taking them.

Answer 10

While they will issue Concealed weapons permits they still do not allow them in many public places such as malls. Further more there is a difference between a concealed weapons permit and a conceal and carry permit. The former allows weapons in homes and vehicles the latter allows weapons on your person