Shooting at Portland Mall, 3 Dead!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/11/reports-gunfire-at-oregon-mall/

A gunman who witnesses say was wearing camouflage and a white plastic mask opened fire in a shopping mall near Portland, Ore., in a shooting that left three dead including the gunman and multiple wounded, police said.


First thing I thought of was wiseone's video from a few days ago:

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

tragic

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

apparently the jerk killed himself

 

[Jarod]

Guns don't kill people, they just make it a lot easier for people to kill people!

 

[007]

Guns don't kill people, they just make it a lot easier for people to kill people!

Untrue.
A bayonet is easier, a knife, an axe or a tomahawk,

Require no maintainence, need no loading, easier to conceal, make no noise and are just as efficient against an unarmed victim as a firearm.
Hence we should stop attacking the right to bear arms.
Rather we should activly encourage it.
These incidents always happen in places where armed victims are unlikely to be found.
Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
That's why you never see these mass shootings in a gun club!

 

[/MSG/]

Guns don't kill people, they just make it a lot easier for people to kill people!

So you propose...?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

In a Libertarian paradise everybody would always be armed, wouldn't they? And on the drug of their choice?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In a Libertarian paradise everybody would always be armed, wouldn't they? And on the drug of their choice?

And there would never be any problem whatsoever with it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The mall is owned and operated by General Growth Properties and all of their 200+ malls have the same policy. It's designed to provide their customers a safe, friendly, and comfortable place to shop. Malls are private property with public access, so they do reserve the right to enforce policies that they feel are necessary.......

how'd that work out for them?????

should they be sued for failure to provide for the safety of their customers?????

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The mall is owned and operated by General Growth Properties and all of their 200+ malls have the same policy. It's designed to provide their customers a safe, friendly, and comfortable place to shop. Malls are private property with public access, so they do reserve the right to enforce policies that they feel are necessary.......

how'd that work out for them?????

should they be sued for failure to provide for the safety of their customers?????

I don't think you understand how "liability" works. They are expected to provide reasonable safety standards. It is impossible for them to ever ensure complete and total safety from any and every possible danger. It's impossible for anyone to ever ensure that, and unreasonable to expect. Case dismissed.

 

[Minister of Truth]

apparently the jerk killed himself

Well, I would have preferred the mall patrons stoning him to death, but at least he's dead.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't think you understand how "liability" works. They are expected to provide reasonable safety standards. It is impossible for them to ever ensure complete and total safety from any and every possible danger. It's impossible for anyone to ever ensure that, and unreasonable to expect. Case dismissed.

case dismissed? what safety do the provide at the moment other than a small unarmed group of people wearing funky hats?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

case dismissed? what safety do the provide at the moment other than a small unarmed group of people wearing funky hats?

What safety does the 7-11 provide? Or the McDonalds? Or the Starbucks? And how would you arm the group in funky hats to protect against any possible threat to safety? Tactical nukes?

Tell ya what let's do, let's play a little game here... you tell me how you would go about absolutely protecting the safety of patrons against any threat, and I will tell you how someone could thwart your efforts? The point is, what you are asking for is impossible and unreasonable. No matter what you come up with, if someone is intent on doing harm, they still can, and there isn't much you or anyone can do about that.

Liability for the safety of patrons rests on the mall providing reasonable safety and security. This means things like adequate lighting in the parking lots, an on-duty security guard or patrol, fire alarms and extinguishers, emergency exits, etc. It does not mean they are responsible for protecting you against any and all possible threats.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What safety does the 7-11 provide? Or the McDonalds? Or the Starbucks? And how would you arm the group in funky hats to protect against any possible threat to safety? Tactical nukes?

around my area, the 7-11, McDonalds, and Starbucks don't have 'no guns' signs posted, so your point isn't made with that. You completely make my case for me by asking me how would I arm the group in funky hats, though I dare say that 'nobody' can guarantee safety anywhere, even the government.

Tell ya what let's do, let's play a little game here... you tell me how you would go about absolutely protecting the safety of patrons against any threat, and I will tell you how someone could thwart your efforts? The point is, what you are asking for is impossible and unreasonable. No matter what you come up with, if someone is intent on doing harm, they still can, and there isn't much you or anyone can do about that.

Again, you make my case for me. NOBODY can guarantee my safety, so how does it not make that entity liable when they deny my own ability to provide for my own safety?

Liability for the safety of patrons rests on the mall providing reasonable safety and security. This means things like adequate lighting in the parking lots, an on-duty security guard or patrol, fire alarms and extinguishers, emergency exits, etc. It does not mean they are responsible for protecting you against any and all possible threats.

'reasonable'....like armed security guards maybe? if all they have is unarmed security, how is that reasonable?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

around my area, the 7-11, McDonalds, and Starbucks don't have 'no guns' signs posted, so your point isn't made with that. You completely make my case for me by asking me how would I arm the group in funky hats, though I dare say that 'nobody' can guarantee safety anywhere, even the government.

No, I am sorry, but you just made my case for me. (Not that I needed your help.) The presence or lack of some sign, did not cause the incident in Portland. If every person in that mall had been armed, that would not have ensured the absolute safety of everyone there. As you correctly point out, NOBODY can guarantee safety anywhere, even the government. So how can you hold someone liable for something they can't be reasonably expected to do? Answer: YOU CAN'T!

Again, you make my case for me. NOBODY can guarantee my safety, so how does it not make that entity liable when they deny my own ability to provide for my own safety?

Again, you are making my case for me, not the other way around. You possessing a firearm does not make the patrons of the mall safer. You could drop your gun and it could discharge, killing some innocent person in proximity, how did that make them safer? You could have pulled your gun on the assailant, and fired at him, inadvertently striking an innocent bystander, how did that make them safer? Go back to your point, there is no way to ensure absolute and total safety for all, in all circumstances. I am pro-gun, I believe in everyone's right to keep and bear arms, but that does not ensure that everyone is safe against any threat. Sorry!

'reasonable'....like armed security guards maybe? if all they have is unarmed security, how is that reasonable?

Because, reasonably speaking, people generally don't shoot at each other in malls. When such a thing occurs, we have law enforcement agents who are trained to use deadly force, who can be called to the scene to respond to such incidents. Again, this does not (and can not) ensure total absolute 100% safety of all people at all times. There is no way to ensure that, it's unreasonable.

 

[Jarod]

Untrue.
A bayonet is easier, a knife, an axe or a tomahawk,

Require no maintainence, need no loading, easier to conceal, make no noise and are just as efficient against an unarmed victim as a firearm.
Hence we should stop attacking the right to bear arms.
Rather we should activly encourage it.
These incidents always happen in places where armed victims are unlikely to be found.
Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
That's why you never see these mass shootings in a gun club!

A gun allows you to kill your victim without being in close range with them, it makes it so you dont have to chase them down. Thats why you never hear of mass stabbings, yet you often hear of mass shootings.

 

[Jarod]

I don't think you understand how "liability" works. They are expected to provide reasonable safety standards. It is impossible for them to ever ensure complete and total safety from any and every possible danger. It's impossible for anyone to ever ensure that, and unreasonable to expect. Case dismissed.

Dixie finally says something intelegent.

Unless the mall had some reason to belive that extra security was needed, and reasonable security would have likely prevented this particular shooting..... case dismissed.

 

[RockX]

The Dead Shooter, looks like another Hispanic Obama supporter

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Dead Shooter, looks like another Hispanic Obama supporter

I am still concerned about wiseone... see the video above. He was on here posting his anti-capitalist rant that made no sense to even the loony lefties, just a few days before a man in white mask perpetrated this tragedy in Portland. It's the sort of thing crazies like this do, just before they go on a killing spree. I'd feel better if he'd weigh in and let us know this wasn't him.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I am sorry, but you just made my case for me. (Not that I needed your help.) The presence or lack of some sign, did not cause the incident in Portland. If every person in that mall had been armed, that would not have ensured the absolute safety of everyone there. As you correctly point out, NOBODY can guarantee safety anywhere, even the government. So how can you hold someone liable for something they can't be reasonably expected to do? Answer: YOU CAN'T!

so you're saying that you can't hold someone responsible for damages when they deny you the means to protect yourself?

Again, you are making my case for me, not the other way around. You possessing a firearm does not make the patrons of the mall safer. You could drop your gun and it could discharge, killing some innocent person in proximity, how did that make them safer? You could have pulled your gun on the assailant, and fired at him, inadvertently striking an innocent bystander, how did that make them safer? Go back to your point, there is no way to ensure absolute and total safety for all, in all circumstances. I am pro-gun, I believe in everyone's right to keep and bear arms, but that does not ensure that everyone is safe against any threat. Sorry!

you're confused. the mall says 'no weapons', so i'm not allowed to carry mine with me for protection, but only because I might endanger the others around me, so how does that not make the mall responsible??? you are sounding like an anti-gun liberal...making no sense. I'm not responsible for the others safety, only mine. Since it's the malls property and they are denying EVERYONE the ability to protect themselves, how does that not make them responsible??

Because, reasonably speaking, people generally don't shoot at each other in malls. When such a thing occurs, we have law enforcement agents who are trained to use deadly force, who can be called to the scene to respond to such incidents. Again, this does not (and can not) ensure total absolute 100% safety of all people at all times. There is no way to ensure that, it's unreasonable.

so we should put the responsibility of our safety on law enforcement??? by golly, we should just ban guns then.