Shooting at Portland Mall, 3 Dead!

Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

say what? what 'reasonable' security would have prevented this shooting??
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you're saying that you can't hold someone responsible for damages when they deny you the means to protect yourself?
Click to expand...

You're not denied the means to protect yourself. You're denied access if you are in possession of a firearm. No one forced you to go there.

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??
Click to expand...

No, you're confused. The mall has a responsibility to provide reasonable safety to all who enter the property. Your possessing a firearm does not ensure the reasonable safety of all who enter the property. If you want to make me out to be an anti-gun liberal, so be it, that doesn't change facts. Again, they are not denying EVERYONE the ability to protect themselves, they are denying you the right to enter the premises with a firearm. They are not expected to protect you from any and all threat to your safety and security, this is an unreasonable expectation. They are only liable for providing you with "reasonable" security and safety.

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

Nonsense, that isn't what I said. You are assuming that safety is guaranteed if everyone is allowed to carry a weapon, and that is not factually accurate or true. Some people don't handle firearms responsibly, some people have really bad aim, some people are careless with firearms, some people use poor judgement in discharging firearms, and the mall simply can't take the chance that everyone would use a firearm responsibly, accurately, and with good and proper judgement. It is "reasonable" for them to assume that this is the case, and implement a policy of "no firearms" on the premises. If the mall had a sign that read "firearms required" and it resulted in someone being shot who wasn't supposed to be shot, they could indeed be held liable for not providing "reasonable" safety measures. Your argument simply fails, and I am not speaking from an "anti-gun" point of view.
 
Dixie said:
You're not denied the means to protect yourself. You're denied access if you are in possession of a firearm. No one forced you to go there.
Click to expand...
on this, we can agree.

Dixie said:
No, you're confused. The mall has a responsibility to provide reasonable safety to all who enter the property. Your possessing a firearm does not ensure the reasonable safety of all who enter the property. If you want to make me out to be an anti-gun liberal, so be it, that doesn't change facts. Again, they are not denying EVERYONE the ability to protect themselves, they are denying you the right to enter the premises with a firearm. They are not expected to protect you from any and all threat to your safety and security, this is an unreasonable expectation. They are only liable for providing you with "reasonable" security and safety.
Click to expand...
define reasonable then.


Dixie said:
Nonsense, that isn't what I said. You are assuming that safety is guaranteed if everyone is allowed to carry a weapon, and that is not factually accurate or true.
Click to expand...
nowhere in this thread have I said that allowing everyone to carry a weapon will guarantee safety. What i'm criticizing is the malls policy of denying weapons and claiming that it's for the safety of their customers, when this shooting obviously shows their policy claim to be false. Therefore, if they are not able to provide safety for their customers because they prohibit weapons, should they not be held responsible for negligently allowing someone to come in with a weapon causing harm?
 
Therefore, if they are not able to provide safety for their customers because they prohibit weapons, should they not be held responsible for negligently allowing someone to come in with a weapon causing harm?
Click to expand...

No. Because, there is no negligence on part of the mall in prohibiting firearms on the premises. They simply did not "allow" the perpetrator to bring a firearm into the mall. We can assume that, had security been aware that he was bringing a firearm into the mall, (against the posted warning not to do so), action would have been taken to prohibit him from entering said mall with the firearm. If you could prove that they were, in fact, aware he had a firearm, and "allowed" him to enter anyway, in disregard of their posted warning, then perhaps you would have a 'negligence' case. I doubt you can prove such a thing.

Law enforcement has established a law against driving under the influence of alcohol. It is against the law in every state. If someone drives under the influence, it doesn't mean law enforcement is "allowing" them to do so. If they kill somebody, law enforcement is not liable for negligence. Now, if a law enforcement officer were to pull this guy over and find him intoxicated, and they "allow" him to continue operating the vehicle, THEN he kills someone, perhaps you have a case of negligence on part of law enforcement. It is unreasonable to expect law enforcement to prevent anyone from ever operating a motor vehicle under the influence, or protect others from what harm he may cause in doing so.
 
nowhere in this thread have I said that allowing everyone to carry a weapon will guarantee safety.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the basis of your presumption. You want to presume that had the mall not prohibited firearms, the presence of firearms in the mall would have protected the safety of the people in the mall. While that might be the case, it is far from guaranteed, and there are just as many safety risks in allowing firearms in the mall.

Let's take your argument to the other extreme here, what if the mall had a sign that said "firearms welcome here!" And you were there in the mall at the time of this incident, with your firearm. Do you think you could be held liable for not using your firearm to protect the safety of the people? Okay, what if you attempted to shoot him, and accidentally shot a child, could you be held responsible for negligence or not? Could the mall be charged with negligence?
 
I never thought I'd say this, but, here goes: kudos, Dixie.

SmarterThanFew's solution to crime is to arm each and every citizen at all times, apparently.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dixie, Fawksian masks are nothing new or special to youth. Everyone I know has one.
 
Wow I am not stoned or inebriated or anything like that, and Dixie is making a lot of sense on this thread.

I hope it doesn't turn out this is the first symptom of my brain tumor.
 
Darla said:
Wow I am not stoned or inebriated or anything like that, and Dixie is making a lot of sense on this thread. I hope it doesn't turn out this is the first symptom of my brain tumor.
Click to expand...

It's weird, huh?
 
Darla said:
Wow I am not stoned or inebriated or anything like that, and Dixie is making a lot of sense on this thread.

I hope it doesn't turn out this is the first symptom of my brain tumor.
Click to expand...

i truly hope you don't have a brain tumor.

unfortunately, nothing can fix stupid, so you're stuck on stupid
 
Darla said:
Wow I am not stoned or inebriated or anything like that, and Dixie is making a lot of sense on this thread.

I hope it doesn't turn out this is the first symptom of my brain tumor.
Click to expand...

Make sure you read Grind's rare exclusive interview. You may be surprised at what you learn about me.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do you know?
Simple tactics make a knife more effective.
It's quiet, people don't hear it coming, you could stab one person a second for an extended period.
A gun requires aiming , target selection , aiming releasing shot, observing fall of shot, one well aimed shot takes 10 seconds, longer even.
Ask a sniper.
You don't know, do you.

Oh and how would banning guns prevent this criminal from commuting his crime with his illegal gun?
Gun control would have no impact!
Empty liberal dogma again!!
 
007 said:
How do you know?
Simple tactics make a knife more effective.
It's quiet, people don't hear it coming, you could stab one person a second for an extended period.
A gun requires aiming , target selection , aiming releasing shot, observing fall of shot, one well aimed shot takes 10 seconds, longer even.
Ask a sniper.
You don't know, do you.

Oh and how would banning guns prevent this criminal from commuting his crime with his illegal gun?
Gun control would have no impact!
Empty liberal dogma again!!
Click to expand...
The phrase "well aimed" isn't indicative of "mass shootings" by their very nature. A person walks into a crowded area and starts firing, who he's aiming at doesn't matter, there's a lot of targets. It's rather akin to a person throwing a rock with the intention of hitting the ground in front of him. A semi automatic can be fired as fast as you pull the trigger until you're out of ammunition. That's the reason soldiers carry guns instead of knives into combat. If knives and swords were still as deadly as guns, you would see the marines actually use those fancy swords they're so fond of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top