Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Convenient Mallshooter With Convenient "Assault Weapon"

     Funny how handily it works out for the gunbanners, isn't it?  ...I don't have a good enough tinfoil chapeau  or even a copy of The Manchurian Candidate to enable my suggesting it's too convenient, but sheesh.

     Still, incompetent attempted mass-shooter is incompetent; with his "extra-deadly" "assault weapon," probably with a more-that-10-round "clip" and reports of over a dozen shots fired, he killed two people, possibly had some kind of a jam, and then shot himself.  A bad outcome but one that could have been much worse.  --And an outcome that could have happened had he been carrying, oh, three Revolutionary War-type muzzleloaders.  Or a bolt-action deer-rifle.  Or a trap-door Springfield.  And a good thing he didn't just show up with a box of home-made Molotov cocktails (bottles, inflammable liquid, rags -- no background check, no waiting period, widely available)  and a lighter, hey?

     Count on this crime being used in yet another attempt to ban scary black rifles that look like the selective-fire ones used by the military and police.  'Cos we all know it's just the wicked gun causes the crime and not the twisted criminal yanking the trigger, right?

17 comments:

Wolfman said...

OR is an Open Carry state, with exception of several cities. Portland is one of them. There's even a prohibition on carrying loaded magazines in Portland. I'm waiting to find out who lines up to blame us hicks in the sticks for this... Y'know, they guys that DIDNT shoot three people yesterday.

Jess said...

I wonder it they'd be as horrified if he'd used a machete? Probably not.

Tango Juliet said...

Ban paper armor!

Tam said...

No conspiracy required.

In a country that has shopping malls, doesn't arbitrarily detain people deemed as "crazy", and which lets free people buy guns, every now and again one of those free crazy people is going to carry a gun into a mall.

We could probably greatly cut down on the incidence of this by being less free (although given the amount of guns in the US, it would be years before the black market cooled down to the dull roar it is in other countries) although we could never completely eliminate it, or we can just accept that freedom is inherently dangerous and stop adulating these losers and slathering their corpses with the attention they so desperately sought.

Ten thousand people in that mall, practically every one of which had the right to shoot back, and not one of them chose to exercise it. That's the sad part...

Old NFO said...

Still waiting for the 'rest' of the story on this one... 60 rounds fired??? I don't think so...

Tam said...

OldNFO,

Sixteen, not sixty.

rickn8or said...

That's the thing about Assault Weapon Mall Shooters. While we despise their actions and motives, you can't help but admire their punctuality.

Bubblehead Les. said...

In reply to Tam 8:25, I'm not sure that the 10,000 people in the Mall had the "Legal Right" to Shoot Back. If they had Posted "No Guns Allowed" and the Oregon State Law says you have to leave your Firearm in the Car, then those who do choose to Obey the Law by Law would be Criminals if they got caught carrying. I hust don't know what the Law is there, but I know that's the Case in Ohio. "No Guns Allowed" means No Guns Allowed.

Roberta, you forgot the Pistol Gripped 12 Gauge Shotgun in your list.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Oooops! My Bad. Rivrdog who lives near the Mall said it's NOT a Gun Free Zone. So, since it seems that about 2-3% of the Population (about 8 million CHPs nationwide) could be carrying, if there was 10,000 people in the Mall, that means there could have been about 2-300 CHP Holders in the Mall.

Even cutting that down to say 20-30 scattered around the Mall, there should have been at least a couple of them who tried to do something.

Tam said...

Bubblehead Les,

What percentage of people with CCW permits really and truly carry everywhere, as opposed to using them to throw a pistol under the car seat once a month when they have to go to the nite deposit slot at the bank.

Archer said...

Out of 10,000 people in the mall, you'd think SOMEONE would be carrying concealed, but alas, David Codrea (over at The War On Guns) pointed out that Clackamas Town Center is owned/operated by General Growth Properties, which prohibits firearms in their venues. "Gun Free Zone", FTW!!

On a more personal note, I live within 50 miles of the place, and used to go up there regularly. I find it interesting that a man with an "assault weapon" with (presumably) a "high-capacity magazine" was able to do less human damage than the shooter in AZ (not naming names; they like notoriety) did with a Glock, or the shooter in WI did with another handgun.

Archer said...

On the other hand, OR State Law (technically) says that carrying under a "No Guns Allowed" sign is a trespass issue. They can ask you to leave, and you can get in trouble if you don't.

In reality, the odds are they won't ask politely. More like, police called, drawn guns, and handcuffs will be involved. Over a f%^&-ing trespass issue.

Drang said...

AR is now being reported as stolen.

Police: Mall shooting gunman stole rifle, acted alone
Check out the photo: Looks like Tattoo's taller brother...

Source: Shooters Northwest: Reports of gunfire at mall near Portland, where several members from Orygun confirm that the mall is posted "Weapons Free".

Windy Wilson said...

Archer, They could call the cops and do more than that. I recall from about 4 years ago someone at a Costco was shot dead after someone saw he was carrying (less than effectively) concealed.
CRAFT (Can't Remember a Freaking Thing) disease is rampant tonight, so hell if I can recall the unfortunate man's name or where or when.

Archer said...

Windy,
Google "costco shooting": a man by the name of Erik Scott was shot by 3 officers outside a Costco in Summerlin, NV, in 2010. Witness accounts conflict, but he was carrying a (permitted) concealed handgun (or two) that, as you noted, was not-so-well concealed. Reportedly, he was also visibly upset over something (possibly being "made"), was causing a ruckus, and may or may not have raised his weapon toward the responding officers. At least partly because of that, the investigators ruled it a justified shooting (I wasn't there, so I'll withhold judgment).

IANAL, and I don't know Nevada law, but let me clarify: my understanding is that in Oregon, absent any other alarming behaviors, carrying in a posted "No Guns" area after being asked to leave (and not doing so) is trespassing, no more and no less. Trespassing isn't normally a cause for the police to respond with drawn guns or SWAT vans, but where firearms (read: "officer safety") are concerned, I wouldn't bet on normal responses. Acting erratically and pointing the gun around makes it somewhat more than simple trespassing, and all bets are off.

Tam said...

" Trespassing isn't normally a cause for the police to respond with drawn guns or SWAT vans, but where firearms (read: "officer safety") are concerned, I wouldn't bet on normal responses."

By the time the word passes from the floor clerk to the manager to the security guy to the 911 operator to the responding officers, "acting slightly agitated and under the influence" can get transmogrified into "OMG! He's shooting up the sporting goods department!"

Phssthpok said...

I'm a little late to this party, but having lived (quite literally) within sniping distance of said mall and being familiar with both the area and Portland/OR firearms laws I'd like to add the following:

@Wolfman: It is not against the law to OC in Portland or any other city. state law pre-empts cities from banning open carry. However there is a provision that allows for cities to prohibit LOADED carry, and some have (Portland included). An interesting note on the 'loaded magazine' ban though... on it's face it is void, being in violation of the same state pre-emption law which prohibits any city from regulating "...ammunition, and firearms accessories...". It has, to the best of my knowledge, not been challenged on those grounds yet.

@Bubblehead Les: Unless something has changed in the last three years (which is roughly the last time I checked for signage) CTC is indeed posted 'no guns'. In OR signage is not legally binding though. (By which I mean ignoring the sign is not a crime in and of itself, merely a cause for being trespassed as others have stated)

Part of the quick response time is owing to the fact that there is a sheriff's substation not three blocks away. (actually about one block away, but it's on the back side of the block across the street from the mall, forcing cars to take a somewhat circuitous route to get there.) Something to note (again on OR laws) is that this building is also the local county run shooting range, open to the public, but unless you have CPL it is 100% illegal for you to posses a firearm inside the building. This is, among other provisions, a direct result of there being ZERO exception in the definitions of 'concealed' for a properly-cased-for-transport firearm.