*Is It Time Yet For Security Guards At Malls: Carry Shot Guns?*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But isn't it time yet?
2. Seems like these random shootings by insane people are happening to often.
3. I think we need to arm *SECURITY OFFICERS*.
4. Why have them, if they are not armed?
5. Do we not trust them to protect the innocent?
6. Do we really need to walk in Malls and Colleges, without a back up plan?
7. Is it fair for *Random Americans* to be walking targets at times?
8. Should certain teachers be allowed to conceal a weapon?
10. All this and a *Bag~O~Chips* right here on DP.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[5stringJeff]

Screw that. If the mall had allowed concealed carry on its premises, chances are higher that someone would have shot back before the security officers arrived, three minutes after the lunatic started firing shots.

An armed society is a polite society.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




Screw that. If the mall had allowed concealed carry on its premises, chances are higher that someone would have shot back before the security officers arrived, three minutes after the lunatic started firing shots.

An armed society is a polite society.



1. But Jeff the security guards have some high tech gadgets, where they have complete over site of the Malls.
2. Like a control center.
3. They are watching ever corner of the Malls.
4. They saw this guy, and were watching him closely.
5. All they had to do would be, just dispatch a couple of armed men to where he came in, and *BLASTED* him as soon as he raised his weapon.
6. I personally have been in a Mall Control Center.
7. They have a person watching screens when ever the Malls are open.
8. Problem is they have no *BITE*.
9. *Toothless Security*
10. Its really an American Shame.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[5stringJeff]

Sorry bout that,







1. But Jeff the security guards have some high tech gadgets, where they have complete over site of the Malls.
2. Like a control center.
3. They are watching ever corner of the Malls.
4. They saw this guy, and were watching him closely.
5. All they had to do would be, just dispatch a couple of armed men to where he came in, and *BLASTED* him as soon as he raised his weapon.
6. I personally have been in a Mall Control Center.
7. They have a person watching screens when ever the Malls are open.
8. Problem is they have no *BITE*.
9. *Toothless Security*
10. Its really an American Shame.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

My point is, when there are armed citizens walking around a shopping center, you don't need a control center.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




My point is, when there are armed citizens walking around a shopping center, you don't need a control center.



1. Sure I understood what you meant, but not everyone who had a concealed weapon would get involved, would they?
2. They may hear shots and decide to take a defensive cover stance.
3. They are not paid to protect.
4. Anyway, if they were armed and trying to seek out the so~called shooter, some one else may think he was the shooter, and he having a concealed weapon shoots him.
5. But security guards see it all.
6. They can dispatch armed men to take down a particular suspect.
7. Much more effective, and less possibility for a innocent man wandering around with a weapon looking for bad guys.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[5stringJeff]

Sorry bout that,







1. Sure I understood what you meant, but not everyone who had a concealed weapon would get involved, would they?
2. They may hear shots and decide to take a defensive cover stance.
3. They are not paid to protect.
4. Anyway, if they were armed and trying to seek out the so~called shooter, some one else may think he was the shooter, and he having a concealed weapon shoots him.
5. But security guards see it all.
6. They can dispatch armed men to take down a particular suspect.
7. Much more effective, and less possibility for a innocent man wandering around with a weapon looking for bad guys.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I hear what you're saying. Still, if bullets are flying, I'm not waiting on a rent-a-cop to come save me.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




I hear what you're saying. Still, if bullets are flying, I'm not waiting on a rent-a-cop to come save me.



1. Yeah sure, if you were carrying, and you saw this shooter pull out his weapon and aim.
2. It would be the right thing to do, but you would have to make sure he wasn't about to shoot some one standing behind you first, perhaps that shooter was shooting some other guy who had drawn out a weapon.
3. You would have to scan all the people first, to see what was happening.
4. I understand they were watching this guy in the, *Control Room*.
5. I am sure they have footage of him coming in and going back out of the Mall, going to the third floor, and them pulling out his gun and shooting.
6. They filmed it all.
7. Could of easily prevented it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But it was time for security to be carrying a weapon in a Colorado Church today.
2. A shooter arrives with a high power rifle, and starts shooting in the lobby.
3. A security guard shoots him dead.
4. Read it thusly:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/10cnd-shoot.html?ref=us
5. And here:http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7677509


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[diuretic]

Re the malls.

Up until now most malls have been considered relatively safe, considering they're a target-rich environment for your average nutbar mass murderer I'm surprised there haven't been many more. Why I don't know. I do know that in 1991 in Australia we had a mall shooting where a bloke with an SKS I think it was began spraying it around. Seven people were murdered. Today we don't have armed guards in malls, we don't have CCW, but we still shop in malls.

The mall owners in the US (the largest I think is an Australian company, Westfield Holdings) won't bring in armed security guards. It will frighten the shoppers. The sight of armed security guards will, paradoxically, enhance the fear of shoppers. Strengthening security by other means is another subject.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/crimprev/retail/centres-t.html

As for armed citizens taking on any mall shooters. Forget it. For so many reasons it wouldn't work. Armed citizens aren't trained in active shooter tactics.

But, good work by the security guard in the second incident.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I think its time we have armed security guards, at all in not most public places.
2. Here's how propose we do it.
3. Businesses have a secure area a vestibule have you in the entrance of their business.
4. Customers are pre~scanned while on the street for heavy metals, and doors won't open to them, everyone who comes in are automatically scanned by sonar to detect heavy metals being within that persons clothing.
5. A small bank teller like room will be made, with bullet proof glass, with one~way mirror, located on an outside wall, with a single security guard occupying it, he will have monitors on all approaches to the business, and or Church.
6. His only job will be security, and the safety of the occupants.
7. If some how, a person comes in with heavy metals on his person, a computer generated laser linked with the sonar detector, will pin point him, and follow him, the doors to the business will automatically lock, as so will the exits.
8. The security guard will have a slot running horizontal, in the bullet proof glass to wag out a shot gun, to blast the perp.
9. Also a lower slot about 24" from the floor in case the perp were to hunker down near the floor.
10. Both slots will have a anti-gun wag device from the vestibule side of the slots, like a spring loaded door, that only opens outwards.
11. Security guards will have police type powers on the property they secure.
12. If a person who comes to said business, that has a permit to carry a weapon, that person must push a door bell outside, a drawer will slide out for him to, show his permit, and ID, and check in said weapon, he will speak to the security guard while still outside, explaining his permit rights, his gun will be slid inside a drawer the security guard will activate, and take control of the weapon, without the customer being inside the vestibule, or in the building.
13. The person shall retrieve his weapon the same way he checked it in, producing his id and permit to attain it.
14. This is the best way to protect innocent people in public places.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Hobbit]

As for armed citizens taking on any mall shooters. Forget it. For so many reasons it wouldn't work. Armed citizens aren't trained in active shooter tactics.

Some are, such as off-duty cops or retired military. Even so, it's not that a crack squad of citizen snipers will take down the guy, it's that the guy has no way of knowing whether or not the guy standing next to him is armed and dangerous, thus making the possibility of concealed weapons a deterrent.

[Hagbard Celine]

In Europe, guards in all public spaces carry automatic weapons. While I was over there, I definately felt "safe" if that's the word to use. However, isn't that the definition of a police state? :dunno:

[Little-Acorn]

Screw that. If the mall had allowed concealed carry on its premises, chances are higher that someone would have shot back before the security officers arrived, three minutes after the lunatic started firing shots.

An armed society is a polite society.

If the mall had allowed concealed carry on its premises, chances are higher that the nutcase wouldn't have brought his rifle to the mall in the first place.

He (as do many such mass murderers) wanted to make a huge, spectacular "statement". If he could be reasonably sure that he'd get dead before he could fire more than one or two shots, he'd know that "making a huge statement" would be next to impossible at that mall, and so probably wouldn't have tried in the first place.

That's the biggest advantage of concealed carry: deterrence. If CCW is universally permitted for law-abiding adults, fewer mass shootings would be tried in the first place. Not to mention that the few that took place anyway, would be stopped more quickly before lots of innocent people got killed.

And deterrence is the benefit most ignored by CCW opponents. For good reason: What good does it do you to acknowledge something that refutes your entire agenda?

It would have done a lot of good for the victims of the mass shootings, of course. But they're not the ones CCW opponents care about.

[Hagbard Celine]

If the mall had allowed concealed carry on its premises, chances are higher that the nutcase wouldn't have brought his rifle to the mall in the first place.

He (as do many such mass murderers) wanted to make a huge, spectacular "statement". If he could be reasonably sure that he'd get dead before he could fire more than one or two shots, he'd know that "making a huge statement" would be next to impossible at that mall, and so probably wouldn't have tried in the first place.

That's the biggest advantage of concealed carry: deterrence. If CCW is universally permitted for law-abiding adults, fewer mass shootings would be tried in the first place. Not to mention that the few that took place anyway, would be stopped more quickly before lots of innocent people got killed.

And deterrence is the benefit most ignored by CCW opponents. For good reason: What good does it do you to acknowledge something that refutes your entire agenda?

It would have done a lot of good for the victims of the mass shootings, of course. But they're not the ones CCW opponents care about.

First of all, that's speculative at best, second, if the mall had allowed concealed carry and some cowboy had been there to dole-out vigilante justice, the kid wouldn't have gone to the mall in the first place. He'd have gone somewhere else where he could make his "statement." More guns isn't the answer.

[Little-Acorn]

Little haggy said:

...if the mall had allowed concealed carry and some cowboy had been there to dole-out vigilante justice, the kid wouldn't have gone to the mall in the first place.
...and almost in the same breath little haggy then ignored what he'd just said and announced:

More guns isn't the answer.

Thanks for the comedy interlude, haggy. Makes a pleasant change from your usual rants. You do have a sense of humor after all! :laugh2:

Nice to see you agree with me that the shooter would likely be deterred by the possibility of getting drilled by a concealed-carry holder he can't see, if concealed carry were universally permitted.

But if that's so, then where exactly is the "somewhere else" he would go, where he would find lots of people to shoot and still NOT face that exact same threat, from an unnoticed CCW in that crowd?

[Hagbard Celine]

Little haggy said:

...and almost in the same breath little haggy then ignored what he'd just said and announced:


Thanks for the comedy interlude, haggy. Makes a pleasant change from your usual rants. You do have a sense of humor after all! :laugh2:

Nice to see you agree with me that the shooter would likely be deterred by the possibility of getting drilled by a concealed-carry holder he can't see.

But if that's so, then where exactly is the "someplace else" he would go, where he would find lots of people to shoot and still NOT face that exact same threat, from an unnoticed CCW in that crowd?

Thanks for this stimulating debate dipsh*t. If it weren't for being able to put the word "little" in front of everyone's name including your own, you'd be up sh*t creek without a paddle in these debates.

[Little-Acorn]

(the usual profanity and namecalling deleted)

That sound you all just heard, was little haggy running away at full speed without answering the question or other points, as usual, with his tail clamped firmly between his hind legs. Proclaiming all the while, of course, that ** I ** was the one with nothing to say.

A funny sequence from the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" comes to mind.



"It's just a flesh wound."

"I've had worse."

"All right, we'll call it a draw."

"I'M INVINCIBLE!!!!"

Just toooo funny................

[Hagbard Celine]

That sound you all just heard, was little haggy running away at full speed without answering the question or other points, as usual, with his tail clamped firmly between his hind legs. Proclaiming all the while, of course, that ** I ** was the one with nothing to say.

A funny sequence from the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" comes to mind.


Just toooo funny................

"Little" Little-Acorn thinks that the answer to all of society's rampant gun-crime problems is to allow more guns in public. Am I really the only one on this whole f'ing site who recognizes this as the nonsensical farce that it is or am I just the only one foolish enough to actually reply to this idiot's posts?

[Little-Acorn]

"Little" Little-Acorn thinks that the answer to all of society's rampant gun-crime problems is to allow more guns in public.
little haggy's 0-for-everything record of being consistently wrong, continues unblemished!


or am I just the only one foolish enough
Ah, a hint of truth is finally creeping in. :poke:

But to answer your question, no, you are not the only one foolish enough to pretend you're "answering" anything while ignoring the question and providing no relevant information or evidence at all. A few others do it too.

[nevadamedic]

Re the malls.

Up until now most malls have been considered relatively safe, considering they're a target-rich environment for your average nutbar mass murderer I'm surprised there haven't been many more. Why I don't know. I do know that in 1991 in Australia we had a mall shooting where a bloke with an SKS I think it was began spraying it around. Seven people were murdered. Today we don't have armed guards in malls, we don't have CCW, but we still shop in malls.

The mall owners in the US (the largest I think is an Australian company, Westfield Holdings) won't bring in armed security guards. It will frighten the shoppers. The sight of armed security guards will, paradoxically, enhance the fear of shoppers. Strengthening security by other means is another subject.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/crimprev/retail/centres-t.html

As for armed citizens taking on any mall shooters. Forget it. For so many reasons it wouldn't work. Armed citizens aren't trained in active shooter tactics.

But, good work by the security guard in the second incident.

Actually thats not true. Quite some time ago the CIA and FBI learned that malls are going to be the next target of AQ.

[diuretic]

Some are, such as off-duty cops or retired military. Even so, it's not that a crack squad of citizen snipers will take down the guy, it's that the guy has no way of knowing whether or not the guy standing next to him is armed and dangerous, thus making the possibility of concealed weapons a deterrent.

That's fine to a point. But a determined shooter who is intent on killing people and then being killed or committing suicide probably isn't going to be bothered by that fact. The first victim might be the bloke standing next to the shooter who, on seeing the weapon come out, tries to take the shooter out. Just a thought.

[diuretic]

Actually thats not true. Quite some time ago the CIA and FBI learned that malls are going to be the next target of AQ.

Pretty small beer, I know that sounds a bit callous but I would think AQ, or any terrorist group for that matter, would select a target that gave it plenty of publicity.

[Little-Acorn]

That's fine to a point. But a determined shooter who is intent on killing people and then being killed or committing suicide probably isn't going to be bothered by that fact.
If that's all he is after, probably true. But many such killers (Omaha mall shooter, Virginian Tech shooter, Columbine High School shooters etc.) have "making a big impression" high on their priority list. They frequently leave notes or video tapes saying exactly that, as the Omaha mall shooter did. They are the ones most likely to be deterred by knowing there are probably some armed good guys nearby wherever they start their little show.

I realize you desperately want there to be no reason to allow ordinary law-abiding citizens to carry guns. But wishful thinking won't make it so. The fact remains that if CCW were universally permitted, we'd have a lot fewer innocent people dead and injured in malls, schools, churches etc.

[diuretic]

If that's all he is after, probably true. But many such killers (Omaha mall shooter, Virginian Tech shooter, Columbine High School shooters etc.) have "making a big impression" high on their priority list. They frequently leave notes or video tapes saying exactly that, as the Omaha mall shooter did. They are the ones most likely to be deterred by knowing there are probably some armed good guys nearby wherever they start their little show.

I realize you desperately want there to be no reason to allow ordinary law-abiding citizens to carry guns. But wishful thinking won't make it so. The fact remains that if CCW were universally permitted, we'd have a lot fewer innocent people dead and injured in malls, schools, churches etc.

You're wrong in what you think I want. I may have made this point in DP before but I am not opposed to CCW. If I lived in the States I would get a CCW permit and I would carry outside the house. I would do so for self-defence reasons. I wouldn't hesitate to use a firearm to shoot someone in my defence or defence of others. I don't own a firearm now but I used to own a Colt Diamondback and a Remington pump-action shotgun. I habitually used as a duty weapon a Smith and Wesson Model 66 with factory .357 magnum load.

I do believe that a few people are indulging in fantasy with the suggestion that active shooters are deterred by the thought that their victims might shoot back. The active shooter always has the advantage. He (any females pulled this sort of trick?) decides where, when and how and what with. In the Omaha shooting he took a position well above his targets and shot down into them. He would have known that responders would probably have entered via the ground floor (or first floor I think it's called in the US) and would have been at an extreme disadvantage even locating the active shooter, let alone incapacitating him. And don't forget that the active shooter doesn't give a shit about survival. Unless someone was behind the active shooter and could get some shots into his back as he was levelling, I would think a CCW citizen couldn't make much of a difference.

Don't misinterpret my thinking, I would be pleased as punch if a CCW citizen could take out an active shooter before anyone was hurt. But in reality it's probably not going to happen as has been envisaged.

I don't have a problem with CCW. I do have a problem with unrealistic expectations of CCW citizens.

[Little-Acorn]

And don't forget that the active shooter doesn't give a shit about survival.

You keep hoping I've forgotten that, despite my repeated assertion that these shooters DO give a shit about naking a spectacular impression. Firing a few shots and getting suddenly dead, doesn't fulfill their wish, so they'll avoid that situation... IF CCW is allowed where cops aren't near at hand, which is just about everywhere.


Unless someone was behind the active shooter
Lots of people were behind the active shooter, at Omaha, Columbine High School and now the Colorado church shootings and other such. And in front of him, and to the sides etc. That's why the shooter was there - more targets. But at most places, all those people were FORBIDDEN TO HAVE GUNS - a fact the killer undoubtedly knew in advance, and counted on so he could make his huge story before killing himself. Only in Colorado Springs did the killer find people shooting back at him - and that one wound up dead before he could injure or kill nearly as many as did the other mass murderers.


and could get some shots into his back
Despite lots of people being near the killer, no one could "get a few shots into his back" because NONE OF THEM HAD A GUN. By direct (and unconstitutional) order of one government or another. If CCW were universally permitted, probably a few of them would have had one, and the outcome would have been much different.


Don't misinterpret my thinking, I would be pleased as punch if a CCW citizen could take out an active shooter before anyone was hurt.
So you say. But most of your posts here, are designed to defeat any chance of that happening.


But in reality it's probably not going to happen as has been envisaged.
That's right, it's not... because persons such as yourself keep wailing over the chance someone may some day shoot an innocent person by mistake. And this while mass murderers are DELIBERATELY shooting MANY innocent persons, in location after location, day after day, right in front of you.

Are you going to go to Omaha, or to Arvada and Colorado Springs, meet with the bereaved families of these shooters' victims, and explain to them why you consider them better off since their dead family members had no chance to defend themselves of the madmen who killed them?

I didn't think so. So much for your concern.

[diuretic]

You keep hoping I've forgotten that, despite my repeated assertion that these shooters DO give a shit about naking a spectacular impression. Firing a few shots and getting suddenly dead, doesn't fulfill their wish, so they'll avoid that situation... IF CCW is allowed where cops aren't near at hand, which is just about everywhere.

The problem here is that you're trying to ascribe rationality to irrational people. They leave notes, they leave videos, they have these fantasies about being "famous" (not realising they're really going to be infamous). So what's attractive about being famous if you're dead? Oh, I don't suppose that crosses their irrational minds does it? No, they want to enjoy the thrill of preparation, the excitement of anticipation, they will get to feel what it's like to kill people, a lot of people and they know they'll either be killed or kill themselves. They'll choose their target situation, they'll know that there will be plenty of targets for them. They'll make sure they have the advantage and they'll enjoy every last second of their last seconds.



Lots of people were behind the active shooter, at Omaha, Columbine High School and now the Colorado church shootings and other such. And in front of him, and to the sides etc. That's why the shooter was there - more targets. But at most places, all those people were FORBIDDEN TO HAVE GUNS - a fact the killer undoubtedly knew in advance, and counted on so he could make his huge story before killing himself. Only in Colorado Springs did the killer find people shooting back at him - and that one wound up dead before he could injure or kill nearly as many as did the other mass murderers.

Again assumptions. An active shooter is several feet away and pulls a gun and starts shooting. You're there with a handgun. What do you do?



Despite lots of people being near the killer, no one could "get a few shots into his back" because NONE OF THEM HAD A GUN. By direct (and unconstitutional) order of one government or another. If CCW were universally permitted, probably a few of them would have had one, and the outcome would have been much different.

Again speculation. Try to stay with me. If the mall had allowed ccw and the shooter thought, "hmmm there could be ccw holders there..." what do you think he would have done? Found another target situation? Possibly. Changed his tactics so that he maintained the advantage? Possibly. See the permutations?





So you say. But most of your posts here, are designed to defeat any chance of that happening.

Nope, you're just pissed off that someone is taking issue with your fantasies.




That's right, it's not... because persons such as yourself keep wailing over the chance someone may some day shoot an innocent person by mistake. And this while mass murderers are DELIBERATELY shooting MANY innocent persons, in location after location, day after day, right in front of you.

What?



Are you going to go to Omaha, or to Arvada and Colorado Springs, meet with the bereaved families of these shooters' victims, and explain to them why you consider them better off since their dead family members had no chance to defend themselves of the madmen who killed them?

I didn't think so. So much for your concern.

Now you've decided a personal attack is the best defence. That tells me you have nothing left to argue with. That was particularly pathetic :laugh2:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I still think trained security men and women, with high tech monitoring, and stealth, is far better than CCW; trained security people, would have the advantage in so many ways.
2. Adding these security measures would cost about 20k to retro fit a building, plus the costs for the guard.
3. Everyone would absorb the cost with higher priced services.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[82Marine89]

1. I still think trained security men and women, with high tech monitoring, and stealth, is far better than CCW; trained security people, would have the advantage in so many ways.
2. Adding these security measures would cost about 20k to retro fit a building, plus the costs for the guard.
3. Everyone would absorb the cost with higher priced services.




Sorry about that, but I refuse to let my life depend on some rent-a-cop with a video camera. I can protect myself just fine. Why don't you like CCW's? Got a problem with the 2nd Amendment?

I also refuse to pay higher prices, or "absorb the costs", for your protection services. Especially if you factor in the cost of a camera system, the guard will be lucky to get minimum wage. I prefer to keep the money I earn and spend it on a nice carry weapon that will smoke anyone that tries to harm me or my family.

[Kathianne]

For the first time, I'm getting weird vibes from what I'm reading:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html


Security Guard: 'God Guided Me And Protected Me'
Jeanne Assam Stopped Gunman At New Life Church
Thomas Hendrick, News Editor

POSTED: 4:46 pm MST December 10, 2007
UPDATED: 8:25 pm MST December 10, 2007
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Jeanne Assam appeared before the news media for the first time Monday and said she "did not think for a minute to run away" when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.

There was applause as Assam spoke to reporters and TV cameras saying, "God guided me and protected me."

Feeback Now: Tell Us What You Think

New Life's Senior Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam "a real hero" because Murray "had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage."

When asked by a reporter if she felt like a hero, Assam said, "I wasn't just going to wait for him to do further damage."

"I give credit to God," she said.

Assam described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his rifle.

Click to read more about the shootings in Colorado Springs and Arvada.

"There was chaos," Assam said, as parishioners ran away, "I will never forget the gunshots. They were so loud."

"I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."

"God was with me," Assam said. "I didn't think for a minute to run away."

Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused even though he appeared to be twice her size and was more heavily armed.

Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

"It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God," she said.

Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.

Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons.

...

[82Marine89]

Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused even though he appeared to be twice her size and was more heavily armed.

All it takes is one well placed shot. The caliber of the weapon isn't important, the training of the user is. She used her training to her advantage. If she wants to thank God, so be it. I don't think He had a part in this.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,





Sorry about that, but I refuse to let my life depend on some rent-a-cop with a video camera. I can protect myself just fine. Why don't you like CCW's? Got a problem with the 2nd Amendment?

I also refuse to pay higher prices, or "absorb the costs", for your protection services. Especially if you factor in the cost of a camera system, the guard will be lucky to get minimum wage. I prefer to keep the money I earn and spend it on a nice carry weapon that will smoke anyone that tries to harm me or my family.



1. First off read the story, at the Church in Colorado Springs, two grown men confronted the shooter and did nothing but aim their guns at him.
2. Guns don't work unless you pull the trigger.
3. A Veteran scolded one of the scared men to let him have the gun, he told him to get back.
4. You can't always count on a CCW to do the right thing.
5. But a trained security guard, with stealth protections, and able to shoot from a safe place would do the job.
6. I think having people with guns and a license to carry them is fine.
7. It still doesn't make them all that reliable, in a crises.
8. Do you carry?
9. And can you legally take it into a Mall or Church?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[diuretic]

Oh by the way -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gunman-in-colorado-shooting-hated-christians/2007/12/11/1197135410998.html

Nice pic :coffee:

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

I have a few friends from Israel who find it amazing and disturbing that the only security at Malls in the US checks you when you leave, not when you enter....look at the exit at any Best Buy, Computer City, etc.....they are more worried about theft than with personal safety in my opinion.


Sorry bout that,
1. But Jeff the security guards have some high tech gadgets, where they have complete over site of the Malls.
2. Like a control center.
3. They are watching ever corner of the Malls.
4. They saw this guy, and were watching him closely.
5. All they had to do would be, just dispatch a couple of armed men to where he came in, and *BLASTED* him as soon as he raised his weapon.
6. I personally have been in a Mall Control Center.
7. They have a person watching screens when ever the Malls are open.
8. Problem is they have no *BITE*.
9. *Toothless Security*
10. Its really an American Shame.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[diuretic]

I have a few friends from Israel who find it amazing and disturbing that the only security at Malls in the US checks you when you leave, not when you enter....look at the exit at any Best Buy, Computer City, etc.....they are more worried about theft than with personal safety in my opinion.

And that is a very useful observation. No, that's not sarcasm, just a straight statement.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Sorry bout that,
1. First off read the story, at the Church in Colorado Springs, two grown men confronted the shooter and did nothing but aim their guns at him.
2. Guns don't work unless you pull the trigger.
3. A Veteran scolded one of the scared men to let him have the gun, he told him to get back.
4. You can't always count on a CCW to do the right thing.
5. But a trained security guard, with stealth protections, and able to shoot from a safe place would do the job.
6. I think having people with guns and a license to carry them is fine.
7. It still doesn't make them all that reliable, in a crises.
8. Do you carry?
9. And can you legally take it into a Mall or Church?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

In Florida this is the law: You legally can carry in those places.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC06.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0790-%3ESection%2006#0790.06

(12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any area technical center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

[Little-Acorn]

The problem here is that you're trying to ascribe rationality to irrational people.
Nope, just reminding you of what they themselves said, in videos or notes etc.


No, they want to enjoy the thrill of preparation, the excitement of anticipation
Now who is ascribing rationality to irrational people?

BTW, they could get all that sitting in their basement at home, without firing a shot.


they will get to feel what it's like to kill people, a lot of people
If the things you keep preaching get enacted, yes, they will get to feel that. If the things I am suggesting get enacted (repealed, actually, CCW restrictions), they won't. And some of them know it. So if CCW is universally permitted, some of them will decide not to do their thing.

For the twelfth time.


and they know they'll either be killed or kill themselves. They'll choose their target situation, they'll know that there will be plenty of targets for them. They'll make sure they have the advantage and they'll enjoy every last second of their last seconds.
I seem to recall someone scoffing at the idea of ascribing rationalilty to irrational people. Apparently such ascription is OK only if the ascribers support your guesswork, not if they support the demonstrated benefits of universal CCW.




Again assumptions.
(sigh) Nope, facts as described by eyewitnesses, the shooters themselves in their little tapes and notes, various surveillance videos, cops who got there too late to to anything but count the bodies and catalog the bullet holes, etc.

What a strange world you live in. You can take virtually ALL the evidence from various crime scenes, and simply wave it away by reciting the word "assumptions", no matter how solidly backed up it is. Though I have difficulty comprehending the mental gymnastics you must be going through to do that, I do begin to understand why you keep defending such an indefensible agenda. You simply ignore anything that contradicts it or refutes it, and voila! There's suddenly nothing wrong with what you've said! Houdini couldn't have done it any better. Neither could Hillary or Sharpton.


An active shooter is several feet away and pulls a gun and starts shooting. You're there with a handgun. What do you do?
Start shaking, wondering what to do , wondering if anyone will be angry with me, worry that I might cause the guy some pain, wonder if I should give him an even break, and twenty other things... until he finally turns around and notices I'm there, whereupon he shoots me in the chest and goes back to blowing away his other targets. At least, if I'm the way you seem to think people are, that's what I'd have to do.

Or maybe I'd just put one in his center mass, watch to see if he's turning, and put another for safekeeping. Then kick his gun away from his hand, drop mine, and maybe tie him up with my belt in case he's not dead.

I'll let you know which one, after it happens. But I'll take bets now. How much would you like to wager? I'm good for it.


If the mall had allowed ccw and the shooter thought, "hmmm there could be ccw holders there..." what do you think he would have done?
I've only recited what I think many such shooters would do, at least half a dozen times in this forum (and in this thread). And here you are asking as if you hadn't read any of it... or forgotten it already, which I guess I must assume is equally likely.


Found another target situation? Possibly.
Now, why didn't I think of that? :lol: Maybe a solution that involved a video game instead of a shopping mall, do you think?


Changed his tactics so that he maintained the advantage? Possibly.
What "tactics" do you feel he could employ, to do that? Please describe them.


(various insults, namecalling, and more of that weird pretension that what I've pointed out is "nothing" deleted, life's too short)

Universal CCW for law-abing adults everywhere is the ONLY suggestion that anybody has put forth here, that has a chance to deter some of these mall shootings etc. so they never happen, and stop the rest before many innocents get killed. But since such a solution doesn't require government, draconian laws, and reasons for big-govt advocates to exist at all, it is of course completely unacceptable to them. Who cares if it would work far better than naything they've tried - it's unacceptable. Remember the priorities: Govt first, people second. All else is secondary, including the lives of the innocents involved.

[gabosaurus]

Excuse me, but:
1. How did this mentally ill fool acquire an automatic weapon?
2. Security saw this fool enter the mall and walk into the store. He had his weapon concealed until he got into the place where he started shooting.
3. How many bystanders would be killed or injured during a gun battle between several different people?
4. A lot of mall guards are off-duty police who are armed. You can't shoot at someone if you don't know who they are.
5. At one of the Colorado church shootings, the shooter was killed by a security guard. But not until after several people had been shot first.
6. If the mentally ill fool had not possessed an automatic weapon in the first place, no one would have been shot.

[diuretic]

Nope, just reminding you of what they themselves said, in videos or notes etc.


Now who is ascribing rationality to irrational people?

BTW, they could get all that sitting in their basement at home, without firing a shot.



You're right, I did step into the rational/irrationality stream. But I had to do it. These folks might be irrational but they're not stupid. They are able to formulate an objective and plan to achieve it. It seems stupendously ridiculous to those of us who aren't suffering the obvious mental illness that they are but they're still capable of carrying out all the steps to achieve their objective.

Being in the basement at home and getting excitement over fantasising is about as fulfilling for them as is masturbation, it's okay but it can't touch the real thing.




If the things you keep preaching get enacted, yes, they will get to feel that. If the things I am suggesting get enacted (repealed, actually, CCW restrictions), they won't. And some of them know it. So if CCW is universally permitted, some of them will decide not to do their thing.

For the twelfth time.


I seem to recall someone scoffing at the idea of ascribing rationalilty to irrational people. Apparently such ascription is OK only if the ascribers support your guesswork, not if they support the demonstrated benefits of universal CCW.

You can bang on about universal CCW as much as you like but I will continue to point out that it won't achieve what you hope it will.





(sigh) Nope, facts as described by eyewitnesses, the shooters themselves in their little tapes and notes, various surveillance videos, cops who got there too late to to anything but count the bodies and catalog the bullet holes, etc.

What a strange world you live in. You can take virtually ALL the evidence from various crime scenes, and simply wave it away by reciting the word "assumptions", no matter how solidly backed up it is. Though I have difficulty comprehending the mental gymnastics you must be going through to do that, I do begin to understand why you keep defending such an indefensible agenda. You simply ignore anything that contradicts it or refutes it, and voila! There's suddenly nothing wrong with what you've said! Houdini couldn't have done it any better. Neither could Hillary or Sharpton.


I searched for a point in there but found nothing of substance. Sniping at me doesn't move your cause. This isn't personal from my side, I'm simply showing you where you are wrong and why.



Start shaking, wondering what to do , wondering if anyone will be angry with me, worry that I might cause the guy some pain, wonder if I should give him an even break, and twenty other things... until he finally turns around and notices I'm there, whereupon he shoots me in the chest and goes back to blowing away his other targets. At least, if I'm the way you seem to think people are, that's what I'd have to do.

Or maybe I'd just put one in his center mass, watch to see if he's turning, and put another for safekeeping. Then kick his gun away from his hand, drop mine, and maybe tie him up with my belt in case he's not dead.

I'll let you know which one, after it happens. But I'll take bets now. How much would you like to wager? I'm good for it.

I hope it never happens to you so I won't put a wager on. But tell me how you would have handled the Omaha shooter. You're on the ground/first floor. He's shooting from the second floor. What's your move?




I've only recited what I think many such shooters would do, at least half a dozen times in this forum (and in this thread). And here you are asking as if you hadn't read any of it... or forgotten it already, which I guess I must assume is equally likely.

You've indulged in pure speculation. I treated it as speculation. But here you are again, can't resist a personal jab. You really don't have much do you?



Now, why didn't I think of that? :lol: Maybe a solution that involved a video game instead of a shopping mall, do you think?

I suspect he'd find another target situation, a real one. Apparently the urge to kill in these people is very strong.




What "tactics" do you feel he could employ, to do that? Please describe them.



Again you act like you think these people are stupid. They're not.



Universal CCW for law-abing adults everywhere is the ONLY suggestion that anybody has put forth here, that has a chance to deter some of these mall shootings etc. so they never happen, and stop the rest before many innocents get killed. But since such a solution doesn't require government, draconian laws, and reasons for big-govt advocates to exist at all, it is of course completely unacceptable to them. Who cares if it would work far better than naything they've tried - it's unacceptable. Remember the priorities: Govt first, people second. All else is secondary, including the lives of the innocents involved.


Ah, detachment from reality :laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

Sorry bout that,

1. I still think trained security men and women, with high tech monitoring, and stealth, is far better than CCW; trained security people, would have the advantage in so many ways.
2. Adding these security measures would cost about 20k to retro fit a building, plus the costs for the guard.
3. Everyone would absorb the cost with higher priced services.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I don't need a professional security force to keep me safe. I just need my own handgun.

[5stringJeff]

Excuse me, but:
1. How did this mentally ill fool acquire an automatic weapon?

It was not an automatic weapon. It was a semi-automatic handgun. There's a pretty big difference there.

[Little-Acorn]

How did this mentally ill fool acquire an automatic weapon?
He didn't.


How many bystanders would be killed or injured during a gun battle between several different people?
Far fewer than if the murderer is left free to shoot as many people as he likes in the five minutes or more that it takes police to arrive, if we are to go by historical results (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc.). And even more if the cops just mill around outsoide and let him keep shooting, as they usually do. Why do you ask?

You can't shoot at someone if you don't know who they are.
You have named one of the advantages of universally permitted concealed carry, thanks.

If the mentally ill fool had not possessed an automatic weapon in the first place, no one would have been shot.
True. Remind me to slap his hand and tell him he's been naughty.

Or did you have some point to make here? Let me guess: Every law-abiding citizen in America must give up their guns. Which simply means that someone who fully intends to commit mass murder might (gasp!) have to break the law to get his gun. Maybe even get one from a criminal. Yeah, that'll stop him!

Still no one has come up with any suggestion better (and easier to implement) than concealed carry, to prevent and/or stop things like this mass shooting. The hysterics who are so afraid of ordinary people having guns, are losing the debate badly.

[diuretic]

I don't need a professional security force to keep me safe. I just need my own handgun.

Another interesting observation. The fact is that the police don't exist to protect us and there is always an onus on any of us to be ready to protect ourselves or others in the face of a threat. Private security exists to protect the interests of whoever or whatever contracts its services. We really are on our own.

[diuretic]

Little-Acorn said:



Still no one has come up with any suggestion better (and easier to implement) than concealed carry, to prevent and/or stop things like this mass shooting. The hysterics who are so afraid of ordinary people having guns, are losing the debate badly.

You've been reading too much Chess:laugh2: That's a very presumptuous statement.

CCW is no solution to active shooters. CCW is great for self-defence particularly where there is a one on one and particularly where the CCW holder is able to anticipate the danger and be ready to act very quickly. Now, the question really is, should CCW permit holders be trained in Active Shooter Response?

Now before you respond with another sweeping statement let me remind you that:

1. I am fine with CCW so take me out of the "hysterics who are afraid of ordinary people having guns". I'm not. I encourage it. Since I'm not the type of person to threaten others the prospect of the person next to me in the queue at the supermarket being armed doesn't fuss me at all. On more than one occasion I've accidentally revealed my duty weapon and seen people recoil (I used to think it was a personal hygiene issue but it was just irrational fear) and I still don't understand that reaction.
2. CCW is not the answer to an active shooter situation. True enough there may be a flukey situation where someone may get the drop on an active shooter and that's a good thing if it happens. Make a note of that and don't ignore it when you come out of your corner. If a CCW citizen is lucky enough to be able to shoot dead an active shooter than that is a good thing. I'm arguing it's unlikely, not condemning it.
3. Finally, I think there's been a large measure of over-reaction from various quarters about the Omaha shooting (and don't accuse me of minimising the tragedy) and the Colorado shootings. I would suggest there are more differences than similarities between them. In a country of 300 million people where there are more firearms than people, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. So, we need to put these events in perspective. They are comparatively rare.

[glockmail]

A side issue, what is Assam's religion?

[hjmick]

A side issue, what is Assam's religion?

Wait...my bad...wrong thread.

Now, my real answer to your question:

I believe she is a member of The New Life Church. At the very least, based on this quote from an AP article, "Assam, 42, said her faith allowed her to remain steady under pressure," I'd have to say she is a Christian of some denomination or another.

In her own words, "It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God."

[Kathianne]

Shop online.

[glockmail]

Wait...my bad...wrong thread.

Now, my real answer to your question:

I believe she is a member of The New Life Church. At the very least, based on this quote from an AP article, "Assam, 42, said her faith allowed her to remain steady under pressure," I'd have to say she is a Christian of some denomination or another.

In her own words, "It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God." The name sounds middle eastern.

[82Marine89]

Sorry bout that,

1. First off read the story, at the Church in Colorado Springs, two grown men confronted the shooter and did nothing but aim their guns at him.
2. Guns don't work unless you pull the trigger.
3. A Veteran scolded one of the scared men to let him have the gun, he told him to get back.
4. You can't always count on a CCW to do the right thing.
5. But a trained security guard, with stealth protections, and able to shoot from a safe place would do the job.
6. I think having people with guns and a license to carry them is fine.
7. It still doesn't make them all that reliable, in a crises.
8. Do you carry?
9. And can you legally take it into a Mall or Church?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

If you can't depend on someone with a CCW, how can you depend on some rent-a-cop? In order to obtain a CCW, you must prove your ability to use the weapon and use it properly. At least in California you do. I do have a CCW, but I don't always carry. I was lucky enough to get three referral letters from friends of mine. A SD County Sheriff, a SD police officer, and a federal Air Marshall. Without those letters, I probably wouldn't have gotten one. I also have a Nevada CCW, an Arizona CCW, and a Utah CCW which is reciprocal in 21 states. I have never carried in a church, but I do carry at malls.

[82Marine89]

Excuse me, but:
1. How did this mentally ill fool acquire an automatic weapon?
2. Security saw this fool enter the mall and walk into the store. He had his weapon concealed until he got into the place where he started shooting.
3. How many bystanders would be killed or injured during a gun battle between several different people?
4. A lot of mall guards are off-duty police who are armed. You can't shoot at someone if you don't know who they are.
5. At one of the Colorado church shootings, the shooter was killed by a security guard. But not until after several people had been shot first.
6. If the mentally ill fool had not possessed an automatic weapon in the first place, no one would have been shot.

At least we agree that it was his mental illness and not the weapon that was at fault here.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. If everyone carried a weapon, then the odds would lesson that a nutjob would go on a rampage.
2. But not everyone wants to carry.
3. So how do we protect the public.
4. Everyone can't have a cop by their side.
5. I still think security guards should carry heat.
6. I want them to wag around a sawed off shot gun.
7. Look menacing, and ready to blast the bad guys.
8. At gas stations, malls, banks, churches, restaurants, libraries, government buildings, anywhere people congregate.
9. A man holding a shot gun is a great deterrent to the bad guys.
10. I have no problem with it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[diuretic]

Sorry bout that,

1. If everyone carried a weapon, then the odds would lesson that a nutjob would go on a rampage.
2. But not everyone wants to carry.
3. So how do we protect the public.
4. Everyone can't have a cop by their side.
5. I still think security guards should carry heat.
6. I want them to wag around a sawed off shot gun.
7. Look menacing, and ready to blast the bad guys.
8. At gas stations, malls, banks, churches, restaurants, libraries, government buildings, anywhere people congregate.
9. A man holding a shot gun is a great deterrent to the bad guys.
10. I have no problem with it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I won't go into a long-winded post on this but just looking at your list of areas that should have armed security personnel I don't disagree with any of them.

I would NOT have a problem going into any of those places/buildings where visibly armed security personnel were on duty.

But just on the malls. I suspect that the owners of the malls (and the stakeholders who own establishments in said malls) don't like the idea of visibly armed security personnel because they're worried that potential shoppers may somehow be put off entering the mall. Perhaps they think that someone is going to say "oh my, that security guard is carrying a firearm, that must mean this place is unsafe, I think I'll go to another mall where the security personnel don't carry guns, that must be much safer." I know it's stupid but I reckon that's management's perspective.

It seems to me that well trained (and by hell they are now) private security personnel - armed, specifically trained in the particular establishment (the better malls and security personnel employed there actually run training tailored to their situation) and with proper staffing levels and the necessary equipment (surveillance cameras etc) will enhance safety in an establishment, not cause people to shy away from it. But that's just me.

BTW yes, some security personnel are at the lower end of the tree when it comes to skills, training, pay etc but I do believe they're going to be (if not already) a rarity. From what I've read in other places the private security industry (domestic, not the Blackwater type) are definitely increasing in skills and performance.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. But having a security guard, with a pistol grip shot gun, isn't scary at all, remember "Happiness is a warm gun, shoot shoot": when a nutjob is on the loose.
1.a) I also want a leather strap going from the guards elbow to his wrist then the handle so as to keep the weapon out of a perps hand.
2. But really, having guards armed won't hurt business, it will improve it, for people will say, "At least that mall has armed guards, these days you never know when a nutbag will try to kill everyone"
3. They will flock to Malls where they will feel safest.
4. Not protecting places where thousands of people are with armed guards is criminal in itself.
5. What is going on now is nothing but a wide open shooting gallery.
6. The government is failing *The People* in not acting fast enough on this.
7. Nutjobs are watching TV, and thinking, "Hey why not go out in a blaze of glory like that fellow nutjob, just did?"
8. Nutjobs blame everyone for what has befallen them, and they think its okay to punish innocent people who they feel are responsible for their insanity.
9. One reason some people go nutjob, is they think to much about what others think or say about them, whether the people say anything or not about them.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with completely.


Sorry bout that,

1. But isn't it time yet?
2. Seems like these random shootings by insane people are happening to often.
3. I think we need to arm *SECURITY OFFICERS*.
4. Why have them, if they are not armed?
5. Do we not trust them to protect the innocent?
6. Do we really need to walk in Malls and Colleges, without a back up plan?
7. Is it fair for *Random Americans* to be walking targets at times?
8. Should certain teachers be allowed to conceal a weapon?
10. All this and a *Bag~O~Chips* right here on DP.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Hagbard Celine]

Sorry bout that,


1. But having a security guard, with a pistol grip shot gun, isn't scary at all, remember "Happiness is a warm gun, shoot shoot": when a nutjob is on the loose.
1.a) I also want a leather strap going from the guards elbow to his wrist then the handle so as to keep the weapon out of a perps hand.
2. But really, having guards armed won't hurt business, it will improve it, for people will say, "At least that mall has armed guards, these days you never know when a nutbag will try to kill everyone"
3. They will flock to Malls where they will feel safest.
4. Not protecting places where thousands of people are with armed guards is criminal in itself.
5. What is going on now is nothing but a wide open shooting gallery.
6. The government is failing *The People* in not acting fast enough on this.
7. Nutjobs are watching TV, and thinking, "Hey why not go out in a blaze of glory like that fellow nutjob, just did?"
8. Nutjobs blame everyone for what has befallen them, and they think its okay to punish innocent people who they feel are responsible for their insanity.
9. One reason some people go nutjob, is they think to much about what others think or say about them, whether the people say anything or not about them.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

All that would happen is that the number of people wrongly murdered by security officers would increase. It's the same thing that happened when tazers were given to security officers--there have been more tazer-related deaths. It's the same thing that happens anytime more weapons are circulated out into the public.

[glockmail]

All that would happen is that the number of people wrongly murdered by security officers would increase. It's the same thing that happened when tazers were given to security officers--there have been more tazer-related deaths. It's the same thing that happens anytime more weapons are circulated out into the public. If so it should be easy enough for you to prove. Good luck with that, as the facts support the opposite.

[actsnoblemartin]

here kitty kitty, BOOM

Is that the new islamic cat?

I hear his name is jihad, so precious. I heard he blows... up

:laugh2:


If so it should be easy enough for you to prove. Good luck with that, as the facts support the opposite.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,





All that would happen is that the number of people wrongly murdered by security officers would increase. It's the same thing that happened when tazers were given to security officers--there have been more tazer-related deaths. It's the same thing that happens anytime more weapons are circulated out into the public.




1. But I think that people in general would learn to respect security guards a bit more.
2. And not horse around with a them while they are strapped into a sawed off shot gun with pistol grip handle.
3. The security guard would snap out, "Stop thief!" and the perp would lay down while they still got guts in one place.
4. They would have total compliance, not arguements.
5. If the perps got to out of line, blast em!
6. Also they could wear video cams on their helmets, to keep them from turning into *The Taxi Driver*.
7. We as Americans and innocent pedestrians are going to have to insist that our safety just walking or being in a public place is secured.
8. And the perps need to be put on notice, "We Ain't Going To Take It Anymore"
9. *LOCK AN LOAD*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas