Nine dead in Omaha shopping mall shooting

[Little-Acorn]

...Nine so far, that is. Early reports frequently change. But it doesn't sound like the number will be going downward.

Hope it doesn't go up. And prayers for the families of the dead.

A friend of mine lives near therre. He says that that mall used to be decent, but more and more gangbangers have been moving in and the place was becoming a slum.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7455348

Nine People Confirmed Dead in Mall Shooting

Posted: Dec 5, 2007 12:03 PM PST
Updated: Dec 5, 2007 02:36 PM PST

Omaha, NE - Nine people are confirmed dead following the shooting at Westroads Mall this afternoon. Action 3 News has learned at least 5 other people were hurt. Two are in critical condition at area hospitals. 34-year-old Omaha attorney, Jeff Schaffert was shot in the arm. He is in fair condition at the Nebraska Medical Center. A 55-year-old man has already been released from the hospital.

Police believe one of the dead is the shooter. Sergeant Teresa Negron says he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Police are asking everyone to stay away from the area. The neighborhoods around the mall are believed to be safe. Police are asking anyone in their cars outside the mall to stay inside their cars.

The Omaha Police Department says the Hampton Inn across the street from the mall is welcoming concerned family at this point.

Von Maur Corporate issued this statement: "We are deeply saddened by the horrific shooting at our Omaha store this afternoon. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this tragic event as well as they're families." The Director of Sales tells Action 3 News the store has a policy in place for emergencies such as this. He says workers at the Omaha store went through training for emergencies within the past year.

David Keating, Vice President of Corporate Communications for General Growth Properties which owns Westroads Mall, says, "It's believed the mall will be closed for the rest of the day." Keating says his company's number one concern is to make sure everyone is out of the mall and out of the way.

[Gaffer]

They think the shooter killed himself. So he's not a muslim.

[JohnDoe]

I have a friend who lives there too, need to call him or rather YM him to see if he knows more and to see if he is ok. This is frightening, my husband is a Store Manager for a major dept store here, and this kind of stuff gives me worries.

Sounds like the guy was just nuts, a witness said she saw him grab a teddybear and blow it to smitherines.

Last I heard there were 8 dead, plus the shooter, 14 shot in total, but that was about an hour ago.

jd

[Little-Acorn]

19 year old male, arrested several times, on antidepressants. Sound familiar?

-------------------------------

http://www.ketv.com/news/14782867/detail.html

Suspected Mall Shooter Identified As Bellevue Man, 19
Witness 'Kept Hoping God Would Spare Us'

POSTED: 2:01 pm CST December 5, 2007
UPDATED: 5:33 pm CST December 5, 2007


OMAHA, Neb. -- The shooter at Westroads Mall was identified as Robert Hawkins of Bellevue.

Hawkins, 19, had been arrested on a couple of misdemeanors in November and was due in court this month. One charge included minor in possession. He was arrested on Nov. 24.

Sarpy County deputies said they are getting a warrant to search Hawkins' home in Quail Creek.

At 4:30 p.m., Rollie Yost, in the Sarpy County Sheriff's Office, said shortly after the shooting, Hawkins' mother walked into its office with a note that "could be interpreted as suicidal."

Yost said Sarpy County is working with Omaha police.

A friend of Hawkins, Shawn, told KETV NewsWatch 7 said Hawkins had been on antidepressants. He was staying with friends in Quail Creek, the friend said, and he said Hawkins had recently begun bouncing from job to job and making "some bad judgement calls." Shawn said he was shocked to hear it was the man he calls "Robbie." Shawn said he had heard through the grapevine on Wednesday that Robbie was suicidal.

Shawn said he last saw Hawkins a few months ago.

Witness Prayed

A shopper who was inside Westroads Mall when a gunman killed eight people and himself Wednesday said she prayed she'd survive.

Witness reports vary widely. Jennifer Kramer, said she and her mother were hiding in a men's department at Von Maur. Kramer's mother said she "just kept hoping God would spare us."

Kramer and her mother said they heard 35 to 40 shots as they was taking cover inside the mall.

Matthew Waddell said he was on a scaffold at the store when he heard at least 20 shots. He got down and helped shuffle shoppers to safety.

Another witness said she saw the shooter, who she described as very tall. She said he was shooting in the air. She said she ran.

[avatar4321]

why do people do this?

[Kathianne]

why do people do this?

Well it sounds as if he was just someone that wanted to die by cops and take others out with him.

FTR, I'm just grateful it was a homegrown nutjob, not a terrorist. That doesn't diminish the anguish of those who loved those taken.

[Little-Acorn]

why do people do this?

We always ask that, after every mass shooting. And the answer's always the same: Because the shooter was insane. And some otherwise-normal occurrance, that wouldn't make most people get a gun, go to a crowded place and start shooting, triggers the insane guy off and he gets a gun, goes to a crowded place and starts shooting.

Since the guy is insane, it's impossible to figure out his motives beyond that.

Then shortly after asking "Why?", we get around to asking, "What can we do to prevent this in the future?" Gun control laws are frequently suggested, usually by people who don't know that the guy already violated laws to do what he did, making further laws futile. And the answer always boils down to the same thing: Try to spot the insane ones before they get a gun, go to a crowded place, and start shooting.

And that usually proves impossible, too. This guy was upset, but lots of people get upset. Apparently he didn't look insane. The Virginia Tech shooter was also upset, but didn't look insane, and he also violated laws so don't bother with the gun-control suggestion.

Course, there is another possible thing we could do to try to prevent the next mall or school or office shooting, or at least save some lives before they become victims. And logic suggests it may actually have some positive effect. Anyone care to guess what it is?

[JohnDoe]

Since he was mentally disturbed obviously, I wonder if he owned the gun legally or illegally? And I AM NOT against gun ownership in the least, but I am against the mentally disturbed owning guns....

jd

[diuretic]

why do people do this?

It's difficult to know but it could be a form of anomie and if that's connected with mental illness then something will give.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_theory_(sociology)

[diuretic]

We always ask that, after every mass shooting. And the answer's always the same: Because the shooter was insane. And some otherwise-normal occurrance, that wouldn't make most people get a gun, go to a crowded place and start shooting, triggers the insane guy off and he gets a gun, goes to a crowded place and starts shooting.

Since the guy is insane, it's impossible to figure out his motives beyond that.

Then shortly after asking "Why?", we get around to asking, "What can we do to prevent this in the future?" Gun control laws are frequently suggested, usually by people who don't know that the guy already violated laws to do what he did, making further laws futile. And the answer always boils down to the same thing: Try to spot the insane ones before they get a gun, go to a crowded place, and start shooting.

And that usually proves impossible, too. This guy was upset, but lots of people get upset. Apparently he didn't look insane. The Virginia Tech shooter was also upset, but didn't look insane, and he also violated laws so don't bother with the gun-control suggestion.

Course, there is another possible thing we could do to try to prevent the next mall or school or office shooting, or at least save some lives before they become victims. And logic suggests it may actually have some positive effect. Anyone care to guess what it is?

I'll take a guess. More ownership of firearms so that shooters can be taken down as soon as they start shooting?

[Dilloduck]

We always ask that, after every mass shooting. And the answer's always the same: Because the shooter was insane. And some otherwise-normal occurrance, that wouldn't make most people get a gun, go to a crowded place and start shooting, triggers the insane guy off and he gets a gun, goes to a crowded place and starts shooting.

Since the guy is insane, it's impossible to figure out his motives beyond that.

Then shortly after asking "Why?", we get around to asking, "What can we do to prevent this in the future?" Gun control laws are frequently suggested, usually by people who don't know that the guy already violated laws to do what he did, making further laws futile. And the answer always boils down to the same thing: Try to spot the insane ones before they get a gun, go to a crowded place, and start shooting.

And that usually proves impossible, too. This guy was upset, but lots of people get upset. Apparently he didn't look insane. The Virginia Tech shooter was also upset, but didn't look insane, and he also violated laws so don't bother with the gun-control suggestion.

Course, there is another possible thing we could do to try to prevent the next mall or school or office shooting, or at least save some lives before they become victims. And logic suggests it may actually have some positive effect. Anyone care to guess what it is?

Allow more people to legally carry.

[Gaffer]

If most everyone is armed someone like this would be stopped as soon as he starts.

[-Cp]

THIS PART IS EXACTLY WHY EVERY LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN NEEDS TO PACK HEAT AND KNOW HOW TO USE IT!!!

Police received a 911 call from someone inside the mall, and shots could be heard in the background, Negron said. By the time officers arrived six minutes later, the shooting was over, she said.

"We sent every available officer in the city of Omaha," Negron said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071206/D8TBLJ800.html

[diuretic]

If most everyone is armed someone like this would be stopped as soon as he starts.

And if they're trained in the tactics needed to take out a shooter, no problemo.

[82Marine89]

Allow more people to legally carry.


If most everyone is armed someone like this would be stopped as soon as he starts.

I bet if he knew that there was a chance he would have encountered armed resistance, that he might just have capped himself in the basement of his parents house.

[Little-Acorn]

I'll take a guess. More ownership of firearms so that shooters can be taken down as soon as they start shooting?

Nope. Lots of people already own firearms. Didn't seem to help today, did it?

[Little-Acorn]

Allow more people to legally carry.

Close, but no cigar.

[Little-Acorn]

If most everyone is armed someone like this would be stopped as soon as he starts.

Might be true, but nearly impossible to achieve. Not what I had in mind.

[diuretic]

I bet if he knew that there was a chance he would have encountered armed resistance, that he might just have capped himself in the basement of his parents house.

On the other hand that might have cranked him up a bit more, a firefight might be attractive to him. But then I suppose he topped himself before the cops could do it so maybe he wasn't after it, I dunno.

I do think though that the argument that more people should be armed isn't a valid one. And my objections are practical not philosophical. A bunch of strangers, all armed, in a mall; an armed man starts shooting randomly. Yes, fire can be returned but that pre-supposes that that bunch of strangers are going to be organised in a microsecond. In the confusion of trying to find out (a) what's happening and (b) who's doing the shooting and from where, it could be that that bunch of strangers ends up shooting each other or innocent bystanders. I don't think it's the answer for those reasons. The Salt Lake City mall shooting was ended by an off duty cop who took out the gunman, if I remember rightly. That was one armed man, trained not just in the use of the weapon but also how to deal with a shooter, who took the shooter out. Also the off duty cop probably had been trained in simulated situations where it's necessary to decide whether or not to shoot someone dead, not an easy decision, although it might appear so if you visualise someone shooting people in a mall.

[Little-Acorn]

I bet if he knew that there was a chance he would have encountered armed resistance, that he might just have capped himself in the basement of his parents house.

Closest try yet.

[Little-Acorn]

Course, there is another possible thing we could do to try to prevent the next mall or school or office shooting, or at least save some lives before they become victims. And logic suggests it may actually have some positive effect. Anyone care to guess what it is?

It's simple. Eliminate ALL legal restrictions on concealed carry, everywhere. And eliminate all restrictions on ownership, except felons, minors, and non compos mentis. If you can own a gun, you can carry it wherever you want.

If we do that, most people still won't bother carrying. I probably wouldn't, except for certain occasions. But in any large group (such as, say, at a shopping mall) there will probably be someone within 50 feet of where a potential bad guy is, who are carrying.

And the potential bad will have no way of knowing who that is. But the law-abiding citizen with a gun, WILL know who the bad guy is, as soon as he starts shooting, and maybe before. And the bad guy can expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two), pretty quickly once he starts his little spree. And even if he wasn't afraid to die (as the VT shooter and this mall shooter weren't), he'll know that he won't get much done before he's taken out.

And as 82Marine89 said, this would make SOME potential bad guys, change their minds about doing their thing in a mall, school, office or wherever someone MIGHT be packing. They aren't afraid to die, but this mall shooter wanted to "go out in style". Firing a few shots and then getting dead isn't what they had in mind. A few real whackos will go ahead anyway, but a number of them won't... and you've saved that many lives already. And the whackos who do go ahead, won't kill and injure so many before they're stopped. The people in the mall today waited six minutes befor the first cop arrived, giving the bad guy time to fire anywhere from forty to sixty shots, including reloading time. They'll have to wait about six seconds before an armed citizen or two show up.

And contrary to the aptly-named diuretic's wild predictions, law-abiding people who carry guns tend to be very responsible and careful. Wouldn't you, if you were carrying a potentially deadly weapon? In fact, wouldn't you train with it to make sure you DID know when and when not to shoot, and how to hit your target while missing what's around it? If you didn't feel you could use it wisely when needed, you probably wouldn't carry it, would you? Anti-gun people tend to assume that everyone is a hysterical boob, but in fact the only hysterical reaction is theirs.

Eliminate carry restrictions everywhere. Most people probably won't carry anyway. But a few will... and they will be people who know how to use them wisely. And that's enough to deter most bad guys from trying it in the first place, and to limit the damage by whackos who try it anyway.

The solution isn't perfect. But has anyone got a better one?

[JohnDoe]

It's simple. Eliminate ALL legal restrictions on concealed carry, everywhere. And eliminate all restrictions on ownership, except felons, minors, and non compos mentis. If you can own a gun, you can carry it wherever you want.

If we do that, most people still won't bother carrying. I probably wouldn't, except for certain occasions. But in any large group (such as, say, at a shopping mall) there will probably be someone within 50 feet of where a potential bad guy is, who are carrying.

And the potential bad will have no way of knowing who that is. But the law-abiding citizen with a gun, WILL know who the bad guy is, as soon as he starts shooting, and maybe before. And the bad guy can expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two), pretty quickly once he starts his little spree. And even if he wasn't afraid to die (as the VT shooter and this mall shooter weren't), he'll know that he won't get much done before he's taken out.

And as 82Marine89 said, this would make SOME potential bad guys, change their minds about doing their thing in a mall, school, office or wherever someone MIGHT be packing. They aren't afraid to die, but this mall shooter wanted to "go out in style". Firing a few shots and then getting dead isn't what they had in mind. A few real whackos will go ahead anyway, but a number of them won't... and you've saved that many lives already. And the whackos who do go ahead, won't kill and injure so many before they're stopped. The people in the mall today waited six minutes befor the first cop arrived, giving the bad guy time to fire anywhere from forty to sixty shots, including reloading time. They'll have to wait about six seconds before an armed citizen or two show up.

And contrary to the aptly-named diuretic's wild predictions, law-abiding people who carry guns tend to be very responsible and careful. Wouldn't you, if you were carrying a potentially deadly weapon? In fact, wouldn't you train with it to make sure you DID know when and when not to shoot, and how to hit your target while missing what's around it? If you didn't feel you could use it wisely when needed, you probably wouldn't carry it, would you? Anti-gun people tend to assume that everyone is a hysterical boob, but in fact the only hysterical reaction is theirs.

Eliminate carry restrictions everywhere. Most people probably won't carry anyway. But a few will... and they will be people who know how to use them wisely. And that's enough to deter most bad guys from trying it in the first place, and to limit the damage by whackos who try it anyway.

The solution isn't perfect. But has anyone got a better one?

but little acorn. in reality THAT(your pretty well thought out ideas) will never happen, sooooo, what is your next best sollution? should the mentally ill be allowed to own guns?

jd

[diuretic]

.....

And contrary to the aptly-named diuretic's wild predictions, law-abiding people who carry guns tend to be very responsible and careful. Wouldn't you, if you were carrying a potentially deadly weapon? In fact, wouldn't you train with it to make sure you DID know when and when not to shoot, and how to hit your target while missing what's around it? If you didn't feel you could use it wisely when needed, you probably wouldn't carry it, would you? Anti-gun people tend to assume that everyone is a hysterical boob, but in fact the only hysterical reaction is theirs.

But this is where your plan fails. You can be trained to hit a target on a range or take a deer out because deer are usually unarmed and are unlikely to shoot back. Going after a shooter especially in a crowded place like a mall takes knowledge and training and will.

I also mentioned - a point you conveniently ignored - that there would be no coordination. Imagine a military engagement where every soldier was making their own tactical decisions. That's what would happen - chaos. Unless you force citizens who are armed to undergo extensive tactical training and run them through Hogan's Alley scenarios (I know many people enjoy combat shooting and are very good at it, but unless people are training with standard tactics and as a team we can discount this) then you're setting up a disaster beyond what a single shooter can do.

And leave my nickname alone :laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

but little acorn. in reality THAT(your pretty well thought out ideas) will never happen,
Depends on the amount of common sense people have, and whether it's allowed to permeate into the media for communication and exposure (there's the real problem). I have hope, with the increasing whackiness of today's Democrat leaders and the steady decline of the liberal parts of the media that tries to prop them up. But it remains to be seen.


sooooo, what is your next best sollution?
Lots of people have come up with "next best solutions". None have worked so far, and have only violated law-abiding people's rights. Including killing some of them who could have lived.


should the mentally ill be allowed to own guns?



...eliminate all restrictions on ownership, except felons, minors, and non compos mentis.

That means "the mentally ill".

[Little-Acorn]

But this is where your plan fails.
It doesn't, actually.


You can be trained to hit a target on a range or take a deer out because deer are usually unarmed and are unlikely to shoot back. Going after a shooter especially in a crowded place like a mall takes knowledge and training and will.
And the reason that people who take on the enormous responsibility of concealed carry, will fail to seek out that training, is....???


Imagine a military engagement where every soldier was making their own tactical decisions.
Why, when it bears so little resemblence to what happened in the Omaha mall, Virginia Tech, Columbine High school etc.?


That's what would happen - chaos.
Hasn't happened yet, except the first few seconds. What has happened every time, according to virtually unanimous eyewitness accounts, is that people either hit the floor or run like hell. And then, in seconds, they are either far away from the shooter or hunkered down, praying real hard. The identity of the shooter at that point is very obvious, and he is also making an easy target of himself, either walking around shooting people and reloading, or bent over a balcony rail shooting and reloading.

Only problem is, no one can take advantage of his exposure, since they've usually been forbidden by government from carrying their own gun - a fact the shooter counts on. With the universal right to carry a concealed weapon (as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, BTW), most people stillwouldn't bother carrying, but a few would. So there would be a small number in each mall or wherever, who CAN take advantage of the insane shooter's exposure. Little or no "coordination" is needed - just one or two shots from behind a desk or corner, and it would be over.

And even more important, as I pointed out before (did someone mention "ignoring the point"?), if universal carry were allowed, many shooters would realize the chances of their achieving a huge mass killing were nil, and wouldn't try it in the first place. Thus, that many lives would already be saved, by deterrence without a shot being fired - the biggest advantage of universal concealed carry.

The few really insane ones who try it anyway, will probably injure or kill a few, since they are prepared and the CCWs aren't at first. Sorry I can't make the world perfect for you, given the presence of a few really insane people in a population of 300,000,000, who will always be able to get guns no matter how many dracoinan laws your buddies make to disarm the entire populace. But they won't be able to kill and injure sixteen as the mall shooter did, or forty-plus as the VT shooter did. After their first several shots, the incident would end whether they liked it or not.


And leave my nickname alone :laugh2:
I do. In fact, I point it out and praise it every time I refer to it. Surely you're not complaining about that too? :poke: