Yesterday I posted about Nick, an armed citizen who was at the Clackamas Mall with his girlfriend when an armed gunman was walking through the mall and started shooting. Nick pulled out his gun and was preparing to shoot but held his shot for fear of hitting someone behind the shooter. The shooter then shot himself.
During the press conference on this event, the police cleared up a few widely exaggerated accounts of the facts. It was not a “high powered” weapon, it was not an “assault” rifle, and he was not wearing “body armor.” I can only imagine how these are the three most popular check boxes on the anti-gun Liberal media’s gun-news reporting scorecard, regardless of accuracy.
More strangely…well, not to me…but perhaps to my readers…is that when the discussion at the press conference began to talk about armed citizens in the mall such as Nick, perhaps providing a level of safety and massacre prevention, the news channel abruptly cut off the feed and went to the weather report. Makes perfect sense to me since YOU are not allowed to hear such things. And they say there is no censorship in America…silly rabbits.
As usual, the politicians are using this shooting as a political football to create more stringent gun control laws in Oregon but what they are proposing is comical and unfortunately, fatal.
One bill being introduced will require background checks in Oregon. As a response to this shooting, we can laugh heartily because a background check on this shooter’s gun would have told us what an upstanding citizen the person was that he stole it from. Politicians…stupid little people.
Do you see? It’s not about about gun control, it’s just about CONTROL. They don’t care if their bills have any relevance at all to any particular shooting, ANY shooting will do (except ones that save lives)…the anti-gun crowd has a laundry list of bans and regulations and laws they want to ram down our throats and every incident is simply an opportunity to take advantage of the panic in the herd and pass more of them even if they would have had no impact on the incident itself.
Another bill is trying to create a law where a potential victim of an armed gunman must attempt to flee prior to engaging the assailaint. In other words, you must turn your back on the gunman and run away hoping his lofty moral principles will prevent him from shooting you in the back. More importantly, it means that if this gunman is bearing down on you or your child, and there are several of us all over the mall with our guns trained on him, ready to drop him like a brick, we must let him shoot you or your child because we are not in danger, YOU are, so by law, we are supposed to try and run away first. If that law were in place before this event, Nick would have had to holster his weapon and leave the mall with his girlfriend, allowing the gunman to continue his bloody rampage unimpeded.
Lastly, as I’ve said before in my post on Newtown, CT, madmen shooters don’t like to be shot at. Clackamas Mall is a “Gun Free Zone” which let the shooter know his victims would be sufficiently unarmed and easy targets, even in a State that allows concealed carry permits. And on gunmap.org, you can see that even in States that allow citizens to carry guns, most gun shooting sprees happen in “Gun Free Zones.” Unfortunately, some entire States are basically Gun Free Zones and their gun shooting sprees and murder rates reflect that.
“Other shopping malls with similar victim disarmament policies (Gun Free Zones), as gun rights advocates call them, have had similar shootings. The Tacoma Mall, Omaha’s Westroads Mall, Trolley Square in Salt Lake City; all have seen this kind of event. The one difference with Trolley Square was that an off-duty police officer from another jurisdiction – essentially a private citizen with a gun – engaged the shooter and cornered him until uniformed officers arrived, and thus his actions may have saved lives.”