"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