Greenwood mall shooting

[jamil]

I think the signs do a couple of bad things though.
1 - They might make some people not carry in the mall and therefore reduce their defensive capabilities and safety.
2 - They might encourage a mall shooter to pick this mall believing it is a softer target.

But, they have a right to do it. Just like they would have a right to put up metal detectors and hire a **** ton of Barney Fife's to enforce a strict gun ban. It's just not practical do do that.

But, in that unlikely hypothetical, I think by strictly enforcing a gun ban in the mall, they're communicating that they're mitigating your risk. I think then they would bear at least a little responsibility if someone got through anyway.

 

[jsx1043]

But, they have a right to do it. Just like they would have a right to put up metal detectors and hire a **** ton of Barney Fife's to enforce a strict gun ban. It's just not practical do do that.

But, in that unlikely hypothetical, I think by strictly enforcing a gun ban in the mall, they're communicating that they're mitigating your risk. I think then they would bear at least a little responsibility if someone got through anyway.

Correct. It’s all about risk/liability management. In direct relation to the mall K9 thread, should there be another incident, Simon is going to push direct responsibility to the security company with the dogs. They will lay the blame on them in that they did not adequately perform their job.

There will be no mention that it is security theater only, and even though the dogs and handlers might show remarkable proficiency, one team at a mall can’t cover the whole property and seven entrances.

 

[nonobaddog]

But, they have a right to do it. Just like they would have a right to put up metal detectors and hire a **** ton of Barney Fife's to enforce a strict gun ban. It's just not practical do do that.

But, in that unlikely hypothetical, I think by strictly enforcing a gun ban in the mall, they're communicating that they're mitigating your risk. I think then they would bear at least a little responsibility if someone got through anyway.

I wasn't talking about rights or doing anything different. I think their signs are about the best option they have available.
I was just pointing out that in my opinion the best option is still not perfect.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Okay, so now what if they enforce it? We're talking about metal detectors now, increased security present, and restricted entry.

Your brother in law is an unsafe moron, so you tell him to leave his gun at home when he comes over to visit. He gets stabbed in your front yard in a robbery attempt. You're liable since you prohibited him from having a gun on your property?

C'mon.

If you think their rules make an unsafe environment, don't go. If you do go, you knew up front and took the risk, like rock climbing or getting in a flying death tube, where you also can't carry a gun.

 

[jamil]

Your brother in law is an unsafe moron, so you tell him to leave his gun at home when he comes over to visit. He gets stabbed in your front yard in a robbery attempt. You're liable since you prohibited him from having a gun on your property?

C'mon.

If you think their rules make an unsafe environment, don't go. If you do go, you knew up front and took the risk, like rock climbing or getting in a flying death tube, where you also can't carry a gun.

You made up an absurd scenario that’s not much like what I’m talking about. Granted, I said it’s unlikely that a mall would lock down their facility like a court house. My point was, if they did, even if they don’t advertise their “safety”, they’re tacitly taking responsibility for your safety.

But as I said, the way it is, they’re not preventing anyone from being armed. And that’s fine.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You made up an absurd scenario that’s not much like what I’m talking about.

Ah, yes. Quite absurd to ask if you should assume the liability for someone getting hurt after you prohibited them from carrying a weapon in a discussion about assuming liability for someone getting hurt after you prohibited them from carrying a weapon.

The absurdity remains the notion of assigning civil liability to a property owner for the act of someone they have zero control over because you elected to visit while knowing the rules of doing so.

 

[Leadeye]

So many malls have been on ballistic trajectories lately it may be a moot question for the future.

 

[bwframe]

So many malls have been on ballistic trajectories lately it may be a moot question for the future.

Very good point.

Last I was by the College Mall in Btown, the back half of the mall looked like a ghost town. Only a matter of time before the next "encampment" crowd figures this empty space out?

 

[nonobaddog]

Your brother in law is an unsafe moron, so you tell him to leave his gun at home when he comes over to visit. He gets stabbed in your front yard in a robbery attempt. You're liable since you prohibited him from having a gun on your property?

C'mon.

If you think their rules make an unsafe environment, don't go. If you do go, you knew up front and took the risk, like rock climbing or getting in a flying death tube, where you also can't carry a gun.

I think half the population is more likely to go to that mall, or any mall with signs, and feel perfectly safe because the signs will protect them. The other half could go to that mall and either carry or rely on situational awareness to remain tolerably safe.
The mall isn't really excluding anybody. This is why the signs are the best choice for the mall, business wise.

 

[jamil]

Ah, yes. Quite absurd to ask if you should assume the liability for someone getting hurt after you prohibited them from carrying a weapon in a discussion about assuming liability for someone getting hurt after you prohibited them from carrying a weapon.

The absurdity remains the notion of assigning civil liability to a property owner for the act of someone they have zero control over because you elected to visit while knowing the rules of doing so.

I thought you didn’t like to argue. okay.

The mall already prohibits people from carrying firearms on their property. I said I have no problem with that.

What made your example absurd to apply to what I’m saying, is that it’s essentially the scenario I said I have no problem with. You said I prohibit my brother in-law from bringing his firearm on my property because he’s not safe with guns. The mall prohibits people from bringing firearms on their property now. So how is that the same thing I’m talking about?

So amend your scenario to me enforcing the policy in a way that the mall would have to. We’re talking metal detectors, and such. To me that implies the mall is taking responsibility for your protection. At least a little.

So let me fix your scenario. If I put a mote and dragons around my property and tell the brother in law, don’t bring your guns with you to the BBQ, you’re dangerous with them. And the BIL says, but what if we’re attacked by vikings? I tell him, don’t worry about it. I have a mote and dragons. They will protect you. Besides, they can smell guns and will breathe fire on you if you try to sneak them in.

So then the brother in law comes over to the BBQ with his wife Karen, unarmed.

Wouldn’t you know, vikings from the next village attack, and the dragons all have diarrhea because I fed them leftovers from the smoked pork brisket BBQ, so they’re no help. And the vikings have boats, because they’re vikings. So the moat isn’t any help either.

BIL was pissed because the vikings had their way with Karen, who decided to go with the vikings because BIL hasn’t been taking the blue pills and she’s been a little frustrated.

Long story short, BIL blames me because I didn’t allow him to bring his guns. Which he claims he could have prevented his wife from leaving him. And yes, the attack was at least a little my fault. I fed the dragons the leftover BBQ. In my defense I thought the diarrhea was just a one off thing last time I fed them BBQ leftovers.

 

[nonobaddog]

I thought you didn’t like to argue. okay.

The mall already prohibits people from carrying firearms on their property. I said I have no problem with that.

What made your example absurd to apply to what I’m saying, is that it’s essentially the scenario I said I have no problem with. You said I prohibit my brother in-law from bringing his firearm on my property because he’s not safe with guns. The mall prohibits people from bringing firearms on their property now. So how is that the same thing I’m talking about?

So amend your scenario to me enforcing the policy in a way that the mall would have to. We’re talking metal detectors, and such. To me that implies the mall is taking responsibility for your protection. At least a little.

So let me fix your scenario. If I put a mote and dragons around my property and tell the brother in law, don’t bring your guns with you to the BBQ, you’re dangerous with them. And the BIL says, but what if we’re attacked by vikings? I tell him, don’t worry about it. I have a mote and dragons. They will protect you. Besides, they can smell guns and will breathe fire on you if you try to sneak them in.

So then the brother in law comes over to the BBQ with his wife Karen, unarmed.

Wouldn’t you know, vikings from the next village attack, and the dragons all have diarrhea because I fed them leftovers from the smoked pork brisket BBQ, so they’re no help. And the vikings have boats, because they’re vikings. So the moat isn’t any help either.

BIL was pissed because the vikings had their way with Karen, who decided to go with the vikings because BIL hasn’t been taking the blue pills and she’s been a little frustrated.

Long story short, BIL blames me because I didn’t allow him to bring his guns. Which he claims he could have prevented his wife from leaving him. And yes, the attack was at least a little my fault. I fed the dragons the leftover BBQ. In my defense I thought the diarrhea was just a one off thing last time I fed them BBQ leftovers.

BIL should not blame you because it sounds like you did him a favor. Unless, of course, you made him eat some of that brisket.

 

[jamil]

BIL should not blame you because it sounds like you did him a favor. Unless, of course, you made him eat some of that brisket.

We all ate the brisket. We were all fine. Apparently dragons can’t digest it properly. Probably something in the BBQ recipe.

But, yeah, I tried to convince BIL that he’s better off without Karen. I think he feels a little embarrassed about her leaving with vikings who didn’t need “help” from a pill.

Also, I’ve added crocodiles to the mote. Maybe they can slow the boats down next time.

 

[bwframe]

I thought you didn’t like to argue. okay....

The mall already prohibits people from carrying firearms on their property. I said I have no problem with that.
...

So let me fix your scenario...

Jeez jamil,

My friend, are you trying to run BBI off?

 

[jamil]

Jeez jamil,

My friend, are you trying to run BBI off?

I am a little disappointed that you didn’t ask BBI’s if he’s trying to run me off.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Jeez jamil,

My friend, are you trying to run BBI off?

Well, he can't make me read all that so I think we're safe. I'll wait for the interpretative dance version.

 

[jamil]

Well, he can't make me read all that so I think we're safe. I'll wait for the interpretative dance version.

Oh come on. You didn’t read the story about my brother in law losing his wife to vikings? That was the best part. I’ll confess tho. I fed the dragons the brisket on purpose because I really don’t like Karen. And I’m not all that fond of the in-laws anyway, particularly the BIL.

My intelligence sources inside the viking village told me they were planning the attack.

 

[ditcherman]

Well, he can't make me read all that so I think we're safe. I'll wait for the interpretative dance version.

It was good, you should read it.

 

[ditcherman]

I thought you didn’t like to argue. okay.

The mall already prohibits people from carrying firearms on their property. I said I have no problem with that.

What made your example absurd to apply to what I’m saying, is that it’s essentially the scenario I said I have no problem with. You said I prohibit my brother in-law from bringing his firearm on my property because he’s not safe with guns. The mall prohibits people from bringing firearms on their property now. So how is that the same thing I’m talking about?

So amend your scenario to me enforcing the policy in a way that the mall would have to. We’re talking metal detectors, and such. To me that implies the mall is taking responsibility for your protection. At least a little.

So let me fix your scenario. If I put a mote and dragons around my property and tell the brother in law, don’t bring your guns with you to the BBQ, you’re dangerous with them. And the BIL says, but what if we’re attacked by vikings? I tell him, don’t worry about it. I have a mote and dragons. They will protect you. Besides, they can smell guns and will breathe fire on you if you try to sneak them in.

So then the brother in law comes over to the BBQ with his wife Karen, unarmed.

Wouldn’t you know, vikings from the next village attack, and the dragons all have diarrhea because I fed them leftovers from the smoked pork brisket BBQ, so they’re no help. And the vikings have boats, because they’re vikings. So the moat isn’t any help either.

BIL was pissed because the vikings had their way with Karen, who decided to go with the vikings because BIL hasn’t been taking the blue pills and she’s been a little frustrated.

Long story short, BIL blames me because I didn’t allow him to bring his guns. Which he claims he could have prevented his wife from leaving him. And yes, the attack was at least a little my fault. I fed the dragons the leftover BBQ. In my defense I thought the diarrhea was just a one off thing last time I fed them BBQ leftovers.

Finally, a reasonable argument. /p

“I thought you didn’t like to argue. okay.”
Sometimes you make it hard not to, sometimes you make it easy to.

So you’re telling me you had something inside the castle SO worthy that the Vikings would portage their ships to cross your mote?
Don’t tell me it was the bbq recipe or Karen.

 

[firecadet613]

It was good, you should read it.

The thoughts and stories @jamil comes up with...

If I don't go to the mall, I'll not only avoid the moat but dragons and Karen's as well. Now how do I get that brisket...

 

[dudley0]

It is still on your BIL as to if he takes the chance and goes to your BBQ.

The fact that Karen was in need of some lovin' has ne bearing in the story.

He knew your rules and decided to take the chance. Just like I did a few weeks back when I flew in a death tube to Florida to save many hours of driving. I hated it, but I knew the chances. I got sick as well, maybe from the plane, maybe from a person at the conference, maybe my wife likes Vikings and is poisoning me.