Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:35:01 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.


Carrying your weapon in the Omaha Westroads Mall is illegal.

Nebraska law allows private entities to declare themselves
'gun-free-zones' by posting appropriate 'no-gun' signs. Westroads
Mall chose that option.


And how do they get the criminals to obey the signs?

They don't, of course. They hope that by prohibiting law-abiding folk from
bringing their guns to the venue, that the opportunity for a law-abiding
person to BECOME a criminal is eliminated.

I suppose they say to themselves: "When confronted with the price of an item
or a surly saleslady, if *I* had a gun, I'd shoot somebody! Since *I* am
typical, it's best not to allow firearms."

In my view, the intellectual disagreement has been between those who are
more afraid of guns than criminals and those who hold a reverse philosophy.
In recent years, those who fear criminals more than firearms have been in
the ascendency. In 1986, Florida became the first state to implement "shall
issue" concealed handgun licenses. "Shall issue" means that if you meet the
statutory requirements (stand up, hear thunder, and see lightning), the
licensing authority MUST issue the license - no discretion permitted. Since
then, the number of states with "shall issue" laws has increased to 38.
Another ten have some sort of discretionary scheme (NY and Calif for
example). Only three (including D.C.) have no permitting system at all.
Twenty-five states have adopted a no-retreat Castle Doctrine.