Mall Shooting in Utah Minimized

Sick of me being philosophical? Bored by all the talk about history and political science? Well, Loyal Reader, let's get back to the real world.

You may or may not have heard about this:

Utah gunman, 18, was Muslim from Bosnia

Killed 5 in crowded shopping mall before being gunned down

The 18-year-old gunman who killed five people in a crowded Utah shopping mall was a Bosnian Muslim refugee who was prepared to kill many more, say investigators.

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited today with cornering Sulejmen Talovic, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived to shoot and kill the gunman.

The trench-coated teenager wanted to "to kill a large number of people" and probably would have killed many more if not for the off-duty officer, Police Chief Chris Burbank said.

...

"There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

Unfortunately, my reference in the last post to terrorists shooting up malls wasn't hypothetical.

Now, I realize that it was a police officer that stopped the criminal from killing even more people, but it needs to be noted that he was off-duty and used his concealed handgun. I don't know all of the particulars of Utah law, but many states (and currently Ohio) require that off-duty cops at least carry under the same rules as a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holder. Some states even require them to apply for a CHL to carry while off-duty.

Therefore, it is interesting to note that almost every single mall in Ohio has a "No Guns" policy. On top of that, Ohio law prohibits anyone to carry their legal handgun into an establishment that dispenses alcohol, even if the carrier isn't drinking. Therefore, if this occurred locally, our hero would probably not have been allowed in the mall in the first place. If he was, he would not have been allowed to be in this restaurant with his fiance, assuming it was a typical place that offered alcohol. (I doubt they were having their Valentine's Dinner at Wendy's.)

All in all, thank goodness for one person, his concealed handgun, his will to stop a lunatic from killing even more people, and sensible laws that made it possible for him to do so.

Now, as a follow-up, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (NY-D) has introduced legislation and cites this tragedy as part of her motivation. She wants to do two things:

1) H.R. 297: "The NICS Improvement Act of 2007". What a terribly misleading name. You've read before about the FBI NICS background checks. They're very thorough and ensure that a purchaser has not been convicted of any crimes that would prohibit him from buying firearms. Now... you know what this proposed bill will do? It will add people to the database that were only arrested for crimes that would prohibit them, but never convicted. Yep, you heard that right. People that were found innocent of false charges would fail the NICS background check. Let's re-name this bill to "The NICS Guilty Even After Found Innocent Act of 2007". (More info on this here.)

2) She also wants to reinstate the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban (AWB). However, Congresswoman McCarthy wants this version to be permanent, where the original AWB had a "sunset provision". Congress wisely chose not to renew it. Remember that an AWB only deals with cosmetic features and does not affect the performance of the firearm in any way. (Read my post on Defining an Assault Rifle for more info.) Why do I bring this up? I do so because the criminal shooter used a 12 gauge shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver. Neither of these fall under the arbitrary definition of "assault weapons".

Both of these pieces of legislation would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this terrible crime. They don't even come close to offering any kind of solution. As for gun control in general... I'll repeat this statement: Those that have decided to break laws banning murder will not follow laws that ban guns.

Further, why do many legislators want to make it harder to stop these maniacs? Imagine how much worse this would have been if this armed citizen was legally forbidden to be there... like he would be in Ohio. Imagine how much worse this would have been if it occurred in places where citizens can not carry a legal handgun for protection... such as Washington DC, Chicago, or any school zone.

Studies have been performed in which criminals admit to specifically seeking easy targets. This common sense proves why criminals shoot up schools more often than police stations.