How did the Omaha Mall being a "gun free zone" help the murder victims?

Question

The Westbrook Mall in Omaha, Neb. was a "gun-free zone," at least until mass murderer Robert Hawkins carried a gun into the place and started killing people so he could "go out in style!"

So how did the fact that law abiding citizens were not allowed to carry guns in the mall help the victims of this crime?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

cc_of_Oz : Wouldn't you conclude that since some Americans are going to be armed, it makes more sense for the law-abiding ones to be armed for self-defense?

Omaha: Sorry, you're right - I should have just copied and pasted the name of the mall. Mea Culpa.

Answer 1

It helped the same way banning handguns in Washington DC has for the past 30 years making it a "handgun free" city where you can't even legally own a handgun in your home...it didn't help and just makes gun violence more likely to happen.

"gun free" zones simply provide a place where law-abiding citizens are unarmed while criminals and psychopaths have free reign.

and yes, the quotes are sarcastic...because a "gun free" zone is a fantasy.

Disarming the innocent cannot protect the innocent as only the innocent obey gun control laws.

People like to pretend that "more guns would just make matters worse," but even the anti-gun crowd can't argue against the fact that concealed carry license holders have the lowest rates of violent crime, gun accidents, and gun crime of any demographic...even cops commit more gun/violent crime and have more gun accidents!

If prevalence of legally owned or carried guns were the problem, then areas that ban the legal carry and that have the most restrictive gun control laws would have the lowest rate of gun crime...but the opposite is actually true.

I am much safer anywhere in a "carry zone" than any "gun free" zone.

Answer 2

Declaring an area a "gun free zone" doesn't mean anything, unless Mr. Mall Owner follows through with action---especially in this days and age.

Up until the 9/11 incident, America had been under the honor system-----something which nobody understands nowadays.

If you don't want people to carry guns into your stores, then put up a gun detector device-----just telling people doesn't work anymore.

Now, for the Omaha massacre, say if everybody at the mall carried a gun, how many people would have died that day? I don't think you'd have less than ten corpses.

Answer 3

It was the Westroads mall not Westbrook. After this happened I am seriously thinking about getting a concealed permit. Omaha recently passed a law allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

Even if it was a gun free zone I would not leave my gun in the car, if I had a permit. I would rather be in court than a casket.

Even if this mall was not a gun free zone what are the odds that someone would be carrying a firearm in that particular store at that particular time, or be able to kill a guy with nothing left to loose and carrying an assault riffle.

Answer 4

Let's see, if I wanted to commit a mass killing I'm not going to the local police station to do it unless I'm the terminator, too many GUNS! I want to go where I can do the most damage in the least amount of time with the risk of someone stopping me very small.
NO GUNS IN THE MALL prominently displayed on the entranceways. That will stop "law-abiding" citizens because they don't want to risk getting caught with a weapon in a no weapon zone.
Did it help the victims? Can't ask the dead, they're dead. We can ask the injured but I'm pretty sure they would say it was no help at all.

I wonder how many of the victims had the thought: "I'm sure glad this is the only guy in the mall with a gun"!

Answer 5

If there is no system in place to ensure that each member of the public entering the premises is unarmed, then a gun-free area is just a token gesture in a country where citizens carry guns.

Answer 6

possibly the comparable way a stab sufferer have been given their wounds, the comparable way sufferers of vehicular manslaughter died, the way sufferers of poisoning, drowning, suffocation, electrocution, strangulation, and human beings pushed off homes, somebody did it to them. A gun is a device, provide up blaming the device and initiate blaming the criminal who used it. The gun did no longer kill, the gun reacted because it fairly is robotically outfitted to, the set off became depressed, the firing pin struck the primer, the powder ignighted, tension outfitted and the projectile exited the barrel with the aid of fact somebody consciously and maliciously aimed it at a individual with the reason to kill them. The gun is a human invention with out sentience to come to a decision directly to fireside the bullet or no longer. in basic terms like a knife can not choose to no longer stab or water to come to a decision directly to no longer drown a individual.

Answer 7

We have a simple solution, and it seems to work on the most part. We don't have a gun free mall....

We have a gun free country.

It doesn't mean absolutely no one has guns, but it does mean people are forced to use them, store them, register them and maintain them responsibly. They also need to have a damned good reason for owning one in the first place.

While Americans continue their love affair with their gun culture, and continue to dismiss all the mass murders that just keep on going on and on an on, I hate to say I told you so.. but....

Answer 8

Gun Free Zones only serves to strip good citizens their rights to defend themselves in danger.

Answer 9

If you think a gunfight in a crowded shopping place would produce fewer victims you are crazy.
These situations escalate to the point where any target is considered a threat to a frightened person with a gun
The body count could have been massive

Answer 10

so you're saying if law abiding citizens were allowed to carry guns this would not have happened?

Are stating that more guns would be the solution?

or what is it that you are implying?