Caesar Romano wrote in
:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:26:27 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote
Re Take yer gun to the mall:

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.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

How about getting rid of all ass hole liberals?

Just don't get rid of all duct tape.

I feel no pity for those who live in a state that allows CCW. If that
option is available and you choose not to carry dont complain when a
nutcase shoots some people. Armed citizens are the most effective
crime stopper available. Once robbers and wackos start getting killed
the crime rate will drop.

On Dec 10, 1:06 am, "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.

Steve

SteveB wrote:

"Pete C." wrote

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the gun
was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your holster. So
assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your holster while your
in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove compartment of your
locked vehicle, it would still fall under the breaking and entering type
exception. Having it further locked is certainly a good idea of course.

IIRC, at my last (4th) CCF certification, the instructor said that leaving a
gun in a vehicle is a big no no that can cost you your permit. Even if the
perp breaks into the car.

Steve

Not from the laws I've looked at. Yours may differ. Certainly leaving a
gun unsecured and visible in a car would be an issue. Locked out of
sight in a vehicle, and preferably with at least a trigger lock is
perfectly reasonable, unless a law gives you universal carry right so
you don't have situations where you have to leave your gun in your
vehicle.

SteveB wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing
a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd love to hear
the
rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the gun
owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with exclusions
for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom) leaves their
gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured location) in a
home with children and the child takes the gun and does something the
parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway). If the kid breaks into
a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a burglar steals the gun the
owner is not responsible. If a gun owner leaves their gun(s) in an
unlocked location in their home without children they are fine as well
since anyone gaining access would be breaking and entering.

Seems a pretty reasonable law, though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item safe
from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

Also, in many states, you can lose your CCF permit if your gun is taken from
an unsecured place. Say, you leave it in the car.

Steve

Out of sight in a locked car is not an unsecured place.

However the point is it was a guard, not an civilian.

Somehow a volunteer or minimum wage guard is more trained and
justified than a civilian that went through the same background check
and gun classes?

AZ Nomad wrote:

correlation is not causation and this is ****ing offtopic. Take it
to a politics or firearms newsgroup.

The correlation has been demonstrated time and again, both ways: The rise in
crime where concealed carry is suspended, and the decline in crime where
concealed-carry is put into force or when re-instituted. If you don't like
the topic, tough ****.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Pete C. wrote:
SteveB wrote:

"Pete C." wrote

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the
gun was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your
holster. So assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your
holster while your in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove
compartment of your locked vehicle, it would still fall under the
breaking and entering type exception. Having it further locked is
certainly a good idea of course.

IIRC, at my last (4th) CCF certification, the instructor said that
leaving a gun in a vehicle is a big no no that can cost you your
permit. Even if the perp breaks into the car.

Steve

Not from the laws I've looked at. Yours may differ. Certainly leaving
a gun unsecured and visible in a car would be an issue. Locked out of
sight in a vehicle, and preferably with at least a trigger lock is
perfectly reasonable, unless a law gives you universal carry right so
you don't have situations where you have to leave your gun in your
vehicle.

This is what I have bolted to the floor between the driver and passenger:
http://tinyurl.com/2vgox4

It also works well to hold my wallet when I don't want to carry it around.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing
a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd love to hear
the
rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the gun
owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with exclusions
for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom) leaves their
gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured location) in a
home with children and the child takes the gun and does something the
parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway). If the kid breaks into
a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a burglar steals the gun the
owner is not responsible. If a gun owner leaves their gun(s) in an
unlocked location in their home without children they are fine as well
since anyone gaining access would be breaking and entering.

Seems a pretty reasonable law, though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item safe
from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

Also, in many states, you can lose your CCF permit if your gun is taken from
an unsecured place. Say, you leave it in the car.

Steve

"Pete C." wrote

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the gun
was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your holster. So
assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your holster while your
in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove compartment of your
locked vehicle, it would still fall under the breaking and entering type
exception. Having it further locked is certainly a good idea of course.

IIRC, at my last (4th) CCF certification, the instructor said that leaving a
gun in a vehicle is a big no no that can cost you your permit. Even if the
perp breaks into the car.

Steve

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Dave Bugg wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his
car secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we
are talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon?
I'd love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the
gun owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with
exclusions for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom)
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured
location) in a home with children and the child takes the gun and
does something the parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway).
If the kid breaks into a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a
burglar steals the gun the owner is not responsible. If a gun owner
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked location in their home without
children they are fine as well since anyone gaining access would be
breaking and entering.

I was referring to the act of stealing a car, Pete. My state had a
similar law to the one you described above, and it was thrown out by
the state supreme court. A gun control group then rewrote the law as
an initiative, to account for the flaws in the law, and it was
trounced by 68% of the voters.

Seems a pretty reasonable law,

Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on if such a law causes the weapon
to become unusable for immediate protection. In my vehicle, I have a
digital safe. My Beretta 92F is kept in that safe with a loaded
magazine in an unlocked position in the handle. It provides security
for my weapon, but the digital combination allows near instant
access. It doesn't cripple my ability to deploy the weapon if needed.

though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item
safe from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the gun
was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your holster. So
assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your holster while
your in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove compartment of
your locked vehicle, it would still fall under the breaking and
entering type exception. Having it further locked is certainly a good
idea of course.

The law actually required trigger guards and lock boxes, with the
ammunition
secured in a seperate location to the weapons

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Different law. The one I referred to was CT and was apparently much more
sane that the attempts at one in your area.

Yeah. Someone's carjacking you. Wait! Wait! Let me get my gun. Now give
me the keys so I can get into the trunk and get the ammunition.

WTF are these people thinking?

Steve ...... a liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been carjacked.
Yet.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"SteveB" wrote:


Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you? Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there are
lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime. There
are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from Salt
Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

And how many of these are the random types that we are currently
discussing? Most of the ones you are talking about are not some yahoo
going into the mall and opening up. They are either gang (or criminal)
related or Hubbie getting ****ed at the wife (or boyfriend) and pulling
the trigger. Heck most of the gang related stuff would be a better
indication, since both sides tend to be well armed.
These kinds of incidents, where someone goes into a mall or school
and starts opening up are still too rare to make any calls about how
guns (or lack thereof) would have made a difference. Ain't ideology,
just statistics.

Strange. I seem to think they are moving from "rare" to "commonplace."
Three or four in the past couple of weeks.

And that's just the ones that hit the news.

Steve

wrote

Well, and I know this sounds strange, but you are right about criminals.
They really don't think of the consequences because they can't imagine
they will get caught.
Once bullets start bouncing off of the walls around them, they are smart
enough to duck, giving victims a chance to get out of the line of fire.
Well, in theory I guess. It is still better than having to helplessly
stand there watching people die.

Yabbut, liberals get a pass on this one. They have the ability to "Feel
someone's pain", (A Billary term) and therefore become victims vicariously
and therefore released from the obligation to step in.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 12:06 am, "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.

Steve

In Minnesota unless you try and escape you become a willing
participant.
Then you have to be Jesus Christ himself to survive the aftermath. I
carry.
I would have run. (I assume I would have run. I also assume I would
have
my wits.)

I would say that if you are face to face with a person with a semi-automatic
assault rifle that you would have a plausible contention that you were in
fear of your life, or that others were being or might be killed or injured.
That's the line.

What, turn around so they can shoot you in the back?

Steve

Dave Bugg wrote:

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the
gun was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your
holster. So assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your
holster while your in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove
compartment of your locked vehicle, it would still fall under the
breaking and entering type exception. Having it further locked is
certainly a good idea of course.

The law actually required trigger guards and lock boxes, with the
ammunition secured in a seperate location to the weapons

Bummer. A new law in Texas allows anyone to carry a handgun in their
automobile - well, almost anyone - without a permit. No restrictions on
being loaded, locked up, or whatever.

Louisiana has a very sane law: In the pelican state, your automobile is
considered an extension of your home as far as weapons are concerned.
Anything you can do with a weapon in your house, you can do in your car.

wrote:
I feel no pity for those who live in a state that allows CCW. If that
option is available and you choose not to carry dont complain when a
nutcase shoots some people. Armed citizens are the most effective
crime stopper available. Once robbers and wackos start getting killed
the crime rate will drop.

If, for no other reason, the criminals are dead.

HeyBub wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the
gun was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your
holster. So assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your
holster while your in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove
compartment of your locked vehicle, it would still fall under the
breaking and entering type exception. Having it further locked is
certainly a good idea of course.

The law actually required trigger guards and lock boxes, with the
ammunition secured in a seperate location to the weapons

Bummer. A new law in Texas allows anyone to carry a handgun in their
automobile - well, almost anyone - without a permit. No restrictions
on being loaded, locked up, or whatever.

Fortunately that law was the one overturned by our state's supreme court.

Louisiana has a very sane law: In the pelican state, your automobile
is considered an extension of your home as far as weapons are
concerned. Anything you can do with a weapon in your house, you can
do in your car.

Very sane, indeed.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

It appears that this article sorta indicates that some of the
assumptions stated earlier may be up for reconsideration (g)

Gunman killed outside S. Ind. police HQ


http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../LOCAL/7121003
87
http://tinyurl.com/29csr

Don't like guns? Don't think anyone should have them? Then, lead by example.
Post signs in your windows that state: "This is a gun free house".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"SteveB" wrote in news:t2uu25-
:

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.

Steve



that mall was posted "NO guns".

Illegal to carry there,permit or not.

Don't do business with places that post "NO guns".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in :

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:26:27 GMT, Tony Hwang 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.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

Hasn't happened ANYWHERE on Earth.

(are you going to disarm the police? Orlando PD has had several cruisers
broken into and their guns stolen.USGov't has had LOTs of their guns get
stolen or "go missing".)


How about getting rid of all drugs? Your thinking may
become more clear.

Gee, How was the gunman stopped in Colorado Springs ?
By an armed guard.


the Columbine killers stopped(and suicided) once armed police arrived.
Pearl,MS and Applachian Law School,the killers stopped and surrendered once
confronted by an armed citizen.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

" wrote in news:37828d78-71ca-4f4e-80c2-
:

all gun owners have a responsibilty to keep them away from kids.

easy solution if a gun is used by someone else, like kid in family
takes unlocked gun the owner of the weapon serves 5 years minimum or
whatever the idiot would for commoting the crime or accident.....

Another F-ing liberal who wants to make *theft victims* responsible for
what a thief does with their stolen item.


so johhny jr finds his dads ak47 where dad always keeps it, wrapped in
a rag under the sofa.

johnny kills 3, and himself.


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun owner
MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!


So,if your car gets stolen and used to kill someone,you must be punished?
After all,you failed to keep it secure.

The same could go for your kitchen knives,baseball bat,.....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in news:t2uu25-
:

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.

Steve



that mall was posted "NO guns".

Illegal to carry there,permit or not.

Don't do business with places that post "NO guns".

These days with so many businesses pushing some kind of socio-political
agenda, it makes sense to pay attention to who you are doing business
with. Regardless of your particular views, you may find you are helping
fund your enemy.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Likely true, at least I hope so, that guard should not have used
deadly force if there was not a clear threat.

However the point is it was a guard, not an civilian.

Consider what might have happened if three or four would be heroes
were running around with guns shooting each other.

As it turns out, the woman was NOT a guard, she was a member of the church
who volunteered and used her own weapon.

"Pete C." wrote

BTW, is anyone else wondering why a church has an armed security
guard???

NO. Churches are known to be a place where heathens congregate.

SteveB wrote:
wrote in message news:V557j.226237$Xa3.51512@attbi_s22...

Tony Hwang 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.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?


Yeah. Make sure that the only people who are armed are the nutcases who
want to commit suicide while taking a lot of innocents with them.
If we had restrictive gun laws, do you think this kid couldn't have gotten
a gun? If you do, you are living in lala land.
The answer is to allow more ccw's with properly trained owners and then a
nutcase would be too busy ducking for cover to shoot innocents.


Or at least think about it before they head to the mall. Crime has fallen
in states where CCW laws were relaxed.


Hi,
Since when nutcase thinks normal?

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:22:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

all gun owners have a responsibilty to keep them away from kids.

I do.

easy solution if a gun is used by someone else, like kid in family
takes unlocked gun the owner of the weapon serves 5 years minimum or
whatever the idiot would for commoting the crime or accident.....

The answer is not to build more prisons. I hear people yelp about
"lock 'em up", but when time to build the prison comes they are the
first to say "not in our back yard".

so johhny jr finds his dads ak47 where dad always keeps it, wrapped in
a rag under the sofa.

johnny kills 3, and himself.

dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun owner
MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

What if dad was one of those killed?

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
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.

Steve


Nebraska is a CCW state. CCW's are useless here in NE, because most places
(like malls) prohibit the carry of weapons on their premises. They have the
red circle-slash with a gun in it stickers on the door. If someone would
have ignored the law, and carried in, and shot the *******, they would have
gotten in trouble.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:26:27 GMT, Tony Hwang 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.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead hands!!

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:22:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

all gun owners have a responsibilty to keep them away from kids.

I do.

easy solution if a gun is used by someone else, like kid in family
takes unlocked gun the owner of the weapon serves 5 years minimum or
whatever the idiot would for commoting the crime or accident.....

The answer is not to build more prisons. I hear people yelp about
"lock 'em up", but when time to build the prison comes they are the
first to say "not in our back yard".

so johhny jr finds his dads ak47 where dad always keeps it, wrapped
in a rag under the sofa.

johnny kills 3, and himself.

dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun owner
MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

What if dad was one of those killed?

His embalmed body gets thrown in the pokey.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:36:22 -0600, Caesar Romano
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:26:27 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote
Re Take yer gun to the mall:

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.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

How about getting rid of all ass hole liberals?

Who would then Chair the newly developed _HUG-A-THUG_
committee?

In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

His embalmed body gets thrown in the pokey.

This reminds of a time in Indiana when it was not illegal to try
and commit suicide, but it was illegal to succeed. I always thought
there was probably a Maximum Security Cooler at the State Prison. (g).

Jim Yanik wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in news:t2uu25-
:

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.

Steve



that mall was posted "NO guns".

Illegal to carry there,permit or not.

Don't do business with places that post "NO guns".

I do that. The last time was with an audio-video store from whom I had
purchased equipment to the tune of $11,000.00. I try to shop local and would
have saved about 900.00 if I had purchased online, but like to keep my
business in my community if possible. As we were beginning to load my van,
the owner happened to notice my waistband holster. He gently mentioned that
he doesn't allow guns on his property and would I please not bring it onto
the premises next time. I said, 'Fine. But since the reason I made the
purchase from you, and not the internet, was to take advantage of local
support and service face-to-face. you have just told me not to come back. So
please cancel the order. I'll get my stuff elsewhere.'

The look on his face was priceless.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

His embalmed body gets thrown in the pokey.

This reminds of a time in Indiana when it was not illegal to try
and commit suicide, but it was illegal to succeed. I always thought
there was probably a Maximum Security Cooler at the State Prison. (g).

LOL!!!

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:06 -0800, SteveB
wrote:

wrote in message news:V557j.226237$Xa3.51512@attbi_s22...
Tony Hwang 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.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?


Yeah. Make sure that the only people who are armed are the nutcases who
want to commit suicide while taking a lot of innocents with them.
If we had restrictive gun laws, do you think this kid couldn't have
gotten
a gun? If you do, you are living in lala land.
The answer is to allow more ccw's with properly trained owners and then
a
nutcase would be too busy ducking for cover to shoot innocents.

Or at least think about it before they head to the mall. Crime has fallen
in states where CCW laws were relaxed.


correlation is not causation and this is ****ing offtopic. Take it to a
politics or firearms newsgroup.


New here, huh?

wrote in message
news

However the point is it was a guard, not an civilian.

Somehow a volunteer or minimum wage guard is more trained and
justified than a civilian that went through the same background check
and gun classes?

It would seem to me that a guard carrying a weapon ON PRIVATE PROPERTY may
not require the background checks required of Joe Citizen to carry on public
streets.

I could be wrong.

Steve

Best solution is don't go to the mall.

"Stephen King" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in news:t2uu25-
:

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.

Steve



Yup, that mental a-hole could have hopefully been stopped b4 hurting other
people. What a f'n loser he was.

A case a couple of days ago where a woman security guard shot and killed a
man with weapon and lots of ammunition with hundreds of people near. Not
sure if he was going after them, but probably. Salt Lake City, a few months
ago. Off duty police officer shot and killed gunman after the gunman killed
and wounded people. Other cases.

I wonder how many people who have lived through these incidents went out and
bought concealed firearms and are now certified. I would bet a surprising
number. Too bad we won't hear from them.

Steve

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in news:t2uu25-
:

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.

Steve



that mall was posted "NO guns".

Illegal to carry there,permit or not.

Don't do business with places that post "NO guns".

I do that. The last time was with an audio-video store from whom I had
purchased equipment to the tune of $11,000.00. I try to shop local and
would have saved about 900.00 if I had purchased online, but like to
keep my business in my community if possible. As we were beginning to
load my van, the owner happened to notice my waistband holster. He
gently mentioned that he doesn't allow guns on his property and would
I please not bring it onto the premises next time. I said, 'Fine. But
since the reason I made the purchase from you, and not the internet,
was to take advantage of local support and service face-to-face. you
have just told me not to come back. So please cancel the order. I'll
get my stuff elsewhere.'

The look on his face was priceless.


EXCELLENT!

interestingly,Costco has a "No Guns" policy,but does NOT post signs at
their entries(How two-faced;they don't want CCW,but don't want to lose the
business either).
In the Orlando area,Tuesday Morning has been the only store I've
encountered that was posted "No guns".(I've never done business with them
anyways,just noticed the sign while riding by on my bike.)

What's ironic is that the legal carriers of concealed guns are NOT the ones
anyone has to worry about. Concealed Carry Permit holders have established
a SUBERB record in every state they are allowed.They are more law-abiding
than police.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"J.A. Michel" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
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.

Steve


Nebraska is a CCW state. CCW's are useless here in NE, because most
places (like malls) prohibit the carry of weapons on their premises.
They have the red circle-slash with a gun in it stickers on the door.
If someone would have ignored the law, and carried in, and shot the
*******, they would have gotten in trouble.

That's part of the training. Learning that you are not getting a
Rambo license, and that there are places where you may NOT take your
gun. One of them is ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY that posts signs to exclude
them. What I did was when a local WalMart put those out, I went face
to face with the manager and said that if that was their policy, that
I would no longer shop at any WalMart. I guess enough others did it,
too, and it wasn't long before the signs were gone.

actually,Wal-Mart CORPORATE was contacted and told about the stores that
violate their Corporate Policy allowing legal carry.They notified all their
stores to "clarify" that policy. B-)


Steve




the problem is that such places as malls are really NOT "private"
property,but are *open to the general public*. Thus,they should be treated
the same as any other public place.We already regulate "private" businesses
for food safety,public health,sanitation,fire hazards,workplace safety.

It's tragically clear that posting a place "No guns" does not prevent
criminals or terrorists from coming in with guns and committing murder.

It actually has the OPPOSITE effect,establishing a place clearly SAFE for
criminals to commit murder.
A Guarantee that no one will be equipped to fight back.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

What's ironic is that the legal carriers of concealed guns are NOT
the ones anyone has to worry about. Concealed Carry Permit holders
have established a SUBERB record in every state they are allowed.They
are more law-abiding than police.

I always laugh at the stores that post 'No Guns' signs. They might as well
post a sign saying 'Attention criminals: Please note that we are unarmed and
helpless'.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com