A gunman killed eight people and wounded five others Wednesday at the popular Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, before apparently turning the gun on himself, police said.

Full article here.

Another article with more details here.

Some people were thinking smart by hiding in bathrooms, clothes racks and change rooms. I have often wondered what the best thing to do if something like this happened in an open area in a building that does not have many places to hide.

In the open area scenario, to try and survive, are you better off to run if possible to safety, or lay down and play dead if the chances of running are slim?

if possible, get out. If not, do whatever it takes to survive. For some, that would mean charging the attacker (not necessarily an act of bravery but, not necessarily not, either)...to others, it may mean laying down as if dead. Who knows what we'd do, I think the survival instinct dictates what's appropriate at the moment.

I'm always armed and I think I know what I'd do...but thinking and being there are, of course, two very different situations.

Shoot back! If someone was armed, the situation might have turned out very different.

Of course it depends on the situation and perhaps duck and cover would be a better alternative. But at least, I would not be a helpless victim.

Nomad,

I agree with you. An active defense (shooting back) should be an option for those capable and willing to use it. At the very least it provides an option other than "run and hide".

I live in the Omaha area, and I've shopped at the Von Maur store in Westroads mall. Unfortunately, while Nebraska began issuing concealed handgun permits this year, businesses can post 'no concealed carry' signs that have the force of law. Legal concealed carry for defense was not an option for shoppers at the mall.

We all welcome "random acts of kindness", but I fear we'll never eliminate "random acts of violence".

Dennis

If I could determine from which direction the shots were coming from, I would run the other way.

If I decided to stay, I would look for cover (not just concealment) since we are talking about an active shooter. If I was not armed with a firearm, I would begin looking around for something that could be pressed into service as a weapon. Does the store you are in have a sporting goods section? Then, I would wait to ambush the
bad guy. Be alert and think aggressive. Hopefully, rescue would show up first.

I would not play dead, unless the bad guy was actually a brown bear.

Based on that premise, I'd say surviving victims and the families of those that died have a pretty good case for negligence against the mall owners and any businesses therein that subsribed to such a ridiculous policy.

Obviously the rule did absolutely nothing to prevent or deter the criminal act. So what was the purpose of such a rule?

I would expect to see ownership of that mall change hands soon, based on court orders if nothing else.

Notice how no one ever goes on a shooting spree at police stations. Why don't they? Because they know someone will be shooting back at them. They seek out those locations were the killing will be easy and unresisted.

I doubt I would lay down and play dead, I might chose to hide or fight back depending on the situation. As was mentioned there's always something near by that can be used as an improvised weapon.

Thats something else I have always been thinking about, how to handle the responsibility of the business owner, I mean should they be required by law to have armed guards at all entrances and exits to prevent such things, they would have to be armed and trained because an unarmed guard would just be another target.

I might just be a little parinoid but when I go anywhere I look for possible exits and weapons.

Ditto that advice

As a retired LEO (now doing something else) my reaction would depend upon whether my family was with me or not. If my family is with me I will get them out of harms way, no matter what. If I am alone however, my gut tells me I would probably look for cover and attempt to observe what is going on. If the situation turns into a stand off, and I have observed the suspect(s) the information may have benefit to the responding units. Doing this from cover however is the ONLY way to go.

Nebraska's concealed carry law was sort of a good news/bad news situation. Lot's of folks were happy another state had allowed concealed carry but Nebraska has a pretty extensive list of places that carrying is not allowed and even though the law just went into effect Jan 1, 2007 the Nebraska legislature has already passed a new law modifying it and adding to the list of restricted places. The newly modified statute is below.


69-2441. (1)(a) A permitholder may carry a concealed handgun anywhere in Nebraska, except any: Police, sheriff, or Nebraska State Patrol station or office; detention facility, prison, or jail; courtroom or building which contains a courtroom; polling place during a bona fide election; meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or other political subdivision; meeting of the Legislature or a committee of the Legislature; financial institution; professional, or semiprofessional athletic event; building, grounds, vehicle, or sponsored activity or athletic event of any public, private, denominational, or parochial school or private or public university, college, or community college; place of worship; hospital, emergency room, or trauma center; political rally or fundraiser; establishment having a license issued under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act that derives over one-half of its total income from the sale of alcoholic liquor; place where the possession or carrying of a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law; a place or premises where the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has prohibited permitholders from carrying concealed handguns into or onto the place or premises; or into or onto any other place or premises where handguns are prohibited by law or rule or regulation.

I agree that it is a ridiculous policy for the business to choose but since it is authorized by a brand new Nebraska law and not just a rule of the private property owner there is actually very little chance of anyone recovering from the business owner just on the basis of having the policy in force. You would need to find something more substantial than the no gun policy of the business in order to recover for the victims.

At least they got a reasonable liquor clause. IIRC The TN clause just says liquor by the drink.

It would all depend on the situation for me, really. I'm mostly with everyone else here - if I'm with my family, I'd get them out first at all costs. If I'm by myself I'd have to say I'd run for it first, just out of plain self-preservation.

If I'm in the mall then the whole Hee-Haw gang is with me. (Lord knows I don't go there of my own volition. ) So removing them from the situation would be the first order of business. Escape if possible or find cover or concealment (in that order) if escape isn't possible. IMO rounding those in the immediate area up and moving into a store room, dock or any other space that offers a defensible position would be the most likely option.

Very sad situation. The families involved could surely use our prayers.

As another retired LEO, the only reason I still carry all of the time (with at least one full reload) is so that, should I be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and after getting my family under cover/gone, I can try to take the badguy out before he/she manages to kill/injure any more innocent people. I can imagine no greater terror than being in one of those situations with no way to fight back. If I happened to be unarmed, and in the proper position, I like to think that I would charge the badguy while he was looking/shooting in the opposite direction, or even better, reloading. I may be old and worn out, but I can still inflict a world of hurt if necessary...

"69-2441. (1)(a) A permitholder may carry a concealed handgun anywhere in Nebraska, except any: Police, sheriff, or Nebraska State Patrol station or office; detention facility, prison, or jail; courtroom or building which contains a courtroom; polling place during a bona fide election; meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or other political subdivision; meeting of the Legislature or a committee of the Legislature; financial institution; professional, or semiprofessional athletic event; building, grounds, vehicle, or sponsored activity or athletic event of any public, private, denominational, or parochial school or private or public university, college, or community college; place of worship; hospital, emergency room, or trauma center; political rally or fundraiser; establishment having a license issued under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act that derives over one-half of its total income from the sale of alcoholic liquor; place where the possession or carrying of a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law; a place or premises where the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has prohibited permitholders from carrying concealed handguns into or onto the place or premises; or into or onto any other place or premises where handguns are prohibited by law or rule or regulation."

Obviously this meant nothing to the gunman.

I suppose, then, Nebraskans are left with three choices:

1) Go to these public places unarmed and be a victim

2) Go to these public places armed and be a criminal

3) Don't go anywhere you can't legally carry a concealed weapon


Anyone with any sense is going to choose #3. As with the police station, do you suppose Mr. Insane Criminal is going to go somewhere he expects ordinary citizens to be armed? I would think if he had a choice, he'd frequent the easy marks instead.

[quote=benjammin]I suppose, then, Nebraskans are left with three choices:

1) Go to these public places unarmed and be a victim

2) Go to these public places armed and be a criminal

3) Don't go anywhere you can't legally carry a concealed weapon

These are the choice in most states where one can carry concealed. I try not to enter these "free fire" zones. Most of my friends will carry anyway, saying that all they can do to me if I am discovered is ask me to leave. I am not that sure. In some stated it is a felony trespass violation. I travel too much to keep track of all that so I respect the store managers request, but avoid the store if at all possible.

I agree with the poster that said the management should be made to assume the responsibility for my safety. The few times I have mentioned this to the manager they look at me like I am a nut-case. I think they actually believe that they are preventing weapons from entering their building.

"I can imagine no greater terror than being in one of those situations with no way to fight back. If I happened to be unarmed, and in the proper position, I like to think that I would charge the badguy while he was looking/shooting in the opposite direction, or even better, reloading. I may be old and worn out, but I can still inflict a world of hurt if necessary..."

OBG, I quite agree. Very well put.

I am fortunate enough to live where licensed concealed carry is protected. About the only places I cannot carry are courthouses, airports, and churches, all of which I avoid like the plague.

This latest shooting does have me rethinking what I carry. I would sure hate to have been forced to trade shots with this loser armed with my Kel Tec 380. But that's what I find myself packing about 100% of the time now. Recent laziness has got me out of the habit of carrying something bulkier (read: more effective). No more. From now on, it will be the Kel Tec at work, and either the Sig or Colt at all other times.

Of course not, nor was it designed to. No law is ever enacted with the intent of controlling criminals, they are enacted to control law abiding citizens. Criminals by definition disregard the law anyway.

The real idea behind Nebraska's sign law and similar laws in other states is two fold. First, it's a feel good measure for the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. (sort of like Disneyworld's "security bag check"). It's not there to make a real impact on criminals it's just a show to make the average drone feel better. Second, it provides the property owner with some (albeit limited) defense and statutory protection from victim lawsuits over crazed gunmen.

The property owner truly has very few viable options short of installing metal detectors at every door. Other options such as armed security guards and having no weapon policy each have significant legal drawbacks for the property owner. The property owners are in a no-win situation.

In my state our CCW advocacy/lobbying group has done a lot of good work. One such victory is that we got the legislature to spell out very specifically what constitutes a valid "no CCW" sign. The sign's size, color, language, placement and symbology are all spelled out in great detail. For premises that have multiple entrances, every publicly accessible entrance must have such a sign. In "open air" venues the signs must be huge (3 feet by 4 feet, mounted at a certain height like 5 feet off the ground). Any business/entity that posts against CCW and does not make their signs like this has no legal standing for their anti-CCW action.

Do we go out of our way to notify businesses whose signs don't meet the code? No, we do not.

And that's the way those type of laws should be written, very specific.

But don't get me wrong I am very much opposed to gun free zones (except court rooms, police stations, etc) and personally I avoid places that don't allow me to carry.

However on the other hand, I also believe very strongly in a property owner's rights to control and govern his/her property as they wish. I also realize that no matter what steps the property owner takes they are most likely going to be sued in a situation like Nebraska and win or lose it is going to cost them a small fortune in legal fees.

What about letting everyone carry exposed? It may act as a bit of a deterrent. When I was in Tucson people were allowed to carry exposed permit-free except in the normally off-limits places like cop shops, DMV, school... I kind of liked the idea.

I would vote for a national open carry law. Although I'm afraid the chances of getting that passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court would be extremely challenging.

I wonder what Von Maur did with their more than one million dollar anti-terrorism grant from Homeland Security?

"I can imagine no greater terror than being in one of those situations with no way to fight back."

I can easily imagine something far worse. A crazed gunman shooting people and being shot at by a half-dozen mall ninjas who lack the self-control to know not to shoot and who can't understand that shooting at a target that moves and shoots back is a lot harder than their range practice.

I forget the actual statistic but some time ago the a statistic came out that police miss something like 25% of the time they shoot. Which has to be something of a slanted figure. Police have the need to withhold shooting until the situation favors the shot and will not endanger others.

The average mall ninja steeped in the need for Action, the mythology that says failing to act aggressively is unmanly, with self-control and consideration of consequences as entirely secondary, I would expect the number of wild shots, and collateral damage, to be much higher than what we see with the police.

And nothing makes a policeman happier than to show up in the middle of a shootout between a malevolent shooter and a pack of witless vigilante gunmen playing out their childhood hero fantasies.

If and when the original gunman comes under your sights in such a way that your absolutely sure he is not an off-duty cop, security guard or a guy just like you. If and when the shot is so much of a sure thing that you cannot miss and conceivably put someone else at risk. If and when both of these condition are conclusively, absolutely, metaphysically, fulfilled then and only then does it make sense to shoot.

Anything short of that and your best bet is to as quickly and quietly as possible to get you and yours out of area, away from danger and to a safe location.

Hint: Except for the rare shop in malls, usually tiny kiosk type stores, almost every store has a service entrance and/or fire escape in the back. This leads to a service hall or daylight. In the case of a gunman, fire, riot or zombie attack while your in a mall the fastest way out is to enter the nearest shop, walk to the rear and to go out the back door. The counter staff may object and usually going through the door sets off an alarm but push on through. Most people forget these exits exist.

If a crazed gunman gets between you and your way out and you are armed your certainly allowed to shoot him.

The chances of being in a mall during any such event is astronomically small. Nine dead, even in a nation of 350 million, is a tragic loss but many times as many people will die this year driving to and from malls. This shooting is tragic and justifiably a headline event. But it makes me wonder why the greater loss is so often and so easily accepted as just the way it is.

A perfect post Art!

As to "why the greater loss is so often and so easily accepted as just the way it is." I think that is a combination of factors; I expect we all know someone who has been killed in a traffic 'accident' and, to a certain extent, traffic accidents are regarded as 'normal' due to the frequency of occurrence. The press sensationalise 'national events' that in reality only impact a very small number of people and generally ignore the ongoing carnage on our roads, through lifestyle choices, etc because people would get bored of hearing/seeing the same stories about heart attack, cancer, falls, suicide and vehicle collisions, and it does not sell advertising space/papers.

I believe the root cause of this 'head in the sand mentality' that pretty much everyone of us is guilty of when it comes to considering day to day risks is a combination of familiarity breeding contempt, e.g. I drive the same road everyday, it is familiar, therefore my brain decides it is a 'safe' environment and the fact the humans are particularly poor at taking a detached, probability based, view of risk in general.

As you say Art, the chance of being caught up in such an event is astronomically small. However the chances of winding up dead another, far more statistically likely, way may well not receive the appropriate level of our attention and therefore we do not take the appropriate preventative measures.

OIMO

Art,

Your post brings two different thoughts to mind, they are intertwined, but I'll address them separately.


First, you make a valid point about mass casualty events getting headlines while numerous individual fatalities are, in essence, ignored. Another example is flying. An airliner crash is a major headline event. However it's likely that more people die each year driving to and from airports than die in plane crashes. I think the difference is in being able to influence the odds.

It doesn't matter whether I'm traveling, shopping or reading a book on the sofa, I want control. I may not have control, but I want it. I want the ability to influence events. It's what equipped.org is all about. Prepare for potential circumstances and be Equipped to Survive.

If I'm traveling it means following my father's advice. During his time in the Air Force he spent some time as an aircraft crew chief in Air/Sea Rescue. He had some interesting stories to tell. He summed up his advice as "dress to walk"; meaning, be prepared for the conditions you could encounter during a trip. That meant that if I was flying I should wear and carry clothes (such as boots and a coat) sufficient to keep me alive in case the airplane went down. I spent 10 years as part of an Air Force flight crew and always tried to remember his advice.

If I'm someplace where a crazed lunatic decides to start shooting people, I don't plan to be a hero, I do plan to be a survivor. While running from a hazard has its advantages, it's not always an option. There is an old joke about 'not needing to outrun the bear, just the person you're with'. A family can only escape at the pace of its slowest member. I can walk/run far faster than my wife can, but I'd be a poor excuse for a husband if I left her behind to save myself. In a shooting such as happened at the mall, the best available option might be a cautious retreat or might be to fight back.

Paramedics and firemen do not follow me around. I carry a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher in my Jeep. In the event of a problem I need to cope long enough for help to arrive. Policemen don't follow me around either. While I could improvise a bandage or run from a fire, there is no substitute for a firearm when it is needed.


Now to my second thought. "Mall Ninja", "Armchair Commando" and other semantically loaded labels are used in arguments about the inadvisability of having private citizens carry firearms. Many (most?) states allow private citizens to legally carry concealed handguns with a permit. A small percentage of people obtain a permit, maybe 1-3%. It's statistically unlikely that unless a shooting takes place at a gun shop that more than one or two armed citizens will even be present. So much for "a half-dozen mall ninjas".

People who take the time to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon are more likely (more likely, not absolutely certain) to have taken the time to think about how they would respond in an emergency. Aside from the basic training required by Nebraska, I invested a week of vacation to spend 40 hours in a training class.

People have been carrying legally concealed firearms in public long enough to show that armed citizens seem to be showing good judgment. I think the fear of a "shootout at the OK corral" is overblown.

Dennis

Why, exactly, do suicidally insane people feel the need to “take others with them”?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1207072omaha1.html

So, have any of these events actually happened at any malls near you? Or anywhere at all where citizens are "allowed" to defend themselves?

I'll save you the trouble of research. They have not....

If I ever decided to do myself, I might take a few others with me, but trust me on this, they will NOT be innocent people at the mall. You can probably guess where most of them work...