The Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE was the scene of another massacre by a
mentally-disturbed individual last week. The killer's goals appeared to be to
become famous and to die. He has suceeded at both, but in opposition to his
goals, I will not name him.
As with many other shootings of this type, it occurred in a nominal
"Gun-Free" zone. Unlike some others, I'm not going to claim that the killer
chose his venue based on the lack of legal firearms, as other shooters have gone
to police stations to die in infamy. Available evidence suggests that he chose a
venue where many people were, in hopes of making a news sensation. But what I
will say is that an individual with a desire to commit one crime (murder,
burglary, rape, etc), being a criminal, is going to carry with him the tools of
his crime, even if those tools are themselves illegal. A sign posted "No Guns
Allowed" is not a magic shield, preventing the entry of firearms. It is a
barrier to law-abiding citizens to carry in defense of themselves and the
public. As this
Firsthand account of the Von Maur shooting shows, at least one firearms
owner was in a position to stop the killer. Except he didn't have a concealed
carry permit. Why didn't he have a concealed-carry permit? Because the
restrictions on the law-abiding carrying would have made it almost impossible
for him to carry in daily life, so he had put off applying.
As is common in most malls that I have been in, the Westroads Mall had posted
a sign with a code of conduct on it; one of the items on that sign was a
prohibition on concealed firearms. How effective was this sign? How effective is
any sign of this type? I typically see signs like this posted out of line of
sight at the entrances of the mall, in small enough type that I have to make a
conscious effort to read them; and when I do not only do they have the
ineffective firearms ban, but they also have other behavior bans (such as those
on photography) that are violated on a regular basis.
As much as I dislike the idea of a property owner forcing visitors to his
property to disarm; I'm not going to argue that it should be made illegal - the
right to property is a human right just as self-defense is. It is, however,
immoral. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". Reports from the
incident say that the police were on-scene right around 6 minutes after the
shooting started, a commendable response time. And they went in relatively
rapidly after arrival. But the killer and all but 2 of his victims were dead by
this time. At least one person was in a position to possibly stop the killer
before he finished his work. (I say possibly because by the witness's own
account, the killer had changed magazines once before the witness saw him, and
other accounts imply that the killer took his own life after expending his
second magazine.)
I had, in other venues, suggested that the victims' families sue the mall for
wrongful death because of the banning of firearms on the premises - civil suit.
It appears, however, that the mall management has pulled the code of conduct
signs (Report
from Westroads). If they come back without the firearms ban, I would retract
that suggestion. Not becaue the mall management isn't responsible (they are) but
because the desired action (removal of the immoral firearms restriction) has
already occurred. (There are a number of other things the mall can and should do
as well for the victims and their families, however).