First hand account of the Von Maur (Omaha, Nebraska) shooting

[meef]

Poster #1:

Even if the BG was wearing body armor, getting shot in the chest will most likely be enough to knock him down, at the very least.

Poster #2:

These guys must be superhuman then, because they're not falling down.

Poster #3:

First off, I don't really get the feeling these guys are professional. These guys look like two rednecks playing around in their backyard.

I have seen first hand what a .30 caliber bullet will do someone wearing a Level 4 vest at 75 yards. This guy was only a matter of 5 feet away from the rifle. If you think that you can take a full power rifle round, let alone a .308, at that distance than you are seriously gullible. Also, keep in mind that the round could have been seriously underloaded.

Ask the cops and veterans with broken ribs and collapsed lungs if a vest stops the energy.

Guess again.

That video features Richard Davis of Second Chance Body Armor. You may or may not have heard of him. Hardly a redneck playing around in his backyard.

That was also not the level of body armor you're going to see a cop wearing on the street that was being demonstrated with the .308.

The first two quotes above refer to the fact that one person says that getting shot on the chest while wearing body armor will still likely result in the person being shot get knocked down. The other person attempts to correct this common misconception by providing a link with a video illustration.

Here's a little more of the same. Shorter than the first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y44CdrBsfs&feature=related

 

[bogie]

The reason Rich stuffed the material under his vest is that this sorta thing HURTS. The vest is not a perfectly rigid material - it will bulge inward. Bruising, broken ribs, etc... Better than getting shot with a .44 magnum (which is what he typically shot himself with), but it'll still ruin your whole day. Vests are typically tested by being placed over modeling clay, and then the deformation of the clay is measured.

But this is all in the realm of "what if" - What if someone had engaged the shooter? What if they were successful? Or even unsuccessful? Would a life have been saved? Probably.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Many of the comments bring to mind Franklins oft quoted remark to the effect that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

Franklin's?

 

[Malamute]

Oops, did I mis-credit the source?


May have mixed that up with the freedom/security quote he is credited with.


Who DID say that about evil and good men doing nothing?

 

[HuntAndFish]

You know, I would LOVE to see NWJT sue the mall for their no-guns policy which prevented him from exercising his 2A rights and not respecting his CCW permit.

I would like to see a lawsuit like this work as well. However, a judge would probably throw out a lawsuit from this particular guy because as he says, he didn't follow through on getting his CCW permit (for what reason doesn't matter). So even if allowed to by the Mall authorities, this particular guy couldn't have been legally carrying.

 

[bsf]

You know, I would LOVE to see NWJT sue the mall for their no-guns policy which prevented him from exercising his 2A rights and not respecting his CCW permit.

I would like to see a lawsuit like this work as well. However, a judge would probably throw out a lawsuit from this particular guy because as he says, he didn't follow through on getting his CCW permit (for what reason doesn't matter). So even if allowed to by the Mall authorities, this particular guy couldn't have been legally carrying.

I think these lawsuit suggestions are bull. The mall did not kill those who died, and was no more responsible for the risk to survivors than the survivors themselves. This is still a somewhat free society with something resembling a capitalist economy. People were free to shop elsewhere. If a business establishment sets some ridiculous policy that prohibits the wearing of any footwear but sandals made from the hides of albino wildebeest, I think I would not shop there. AFAIK, there was only one nut-job killing people in that store. We are far too a litigious society.

 

[bogie]

Nope. If the mall insists that you are defenseless, then they should then assume a responsibility for your safety.

 

[LanEvo`]

I would like to see a lawsuit like this work as well. However, a judge would probably throw out a lawsuit from this particular guy because as he says, he didn't follow through on getting his CCW permit (for what reason doesn't matter). So even if allowed to by the Mall authorities, this particular guy couldn't have been legally carrying.

I must have missed that. I thought that he had a CCW but didn't carry in the mall that day.

 

[Lew]

Malamute:

I believe that was Edmund Burke.

 

[gunsmith]

irked I am

The knowledge that he could easily have saved so many lives if he had only ignored a completely illogical and arbitrary rule. He has been punished for respecting the law.

We have got to get the message out that these gun free zones are killing people, if not the njwt guy then someone could have gotten close to the creep.
We are not talking about some highly trained Marine Sniper here.
The shooter was a pathetic loser without a lick of common sense or decency, a fool and a moron.
I am willing to bet some of the witnesses were in striking distance, but fear kept them from tackling during reload.

This thread is not about whether we are good enough to engage a target that is highly motivated and trained, it is about gun free zones making it impossible to engage a disgustingly vile idiotic creep.

 

[OpFlash]

Now I'm not exactly a one hole shooter with a pistol, but I do OK. And even I could make a 50 yard shot from a supported rest.

So could I... with a carbine. Maybe even with a 5" 1911, but I sure wouldn't bet my life on it. Most people CCW much less accurate weapons however. I carry a very lightweight 3" single stack 9mm, and 50 yds is out of the question. Many people carry 2" snubbies. In a store like that there is no cover against a rifle. You miss your first shot and you're dead. You DO have concealment however. A much better strategy IMHO would be to use that concealment to approach the shooter within 10-15yds undetected if possible, then pop up and empty your mag.

 

[feedthehogs]

If the mall insists that you are defenseless, then they should then assume a responsibility for your safety

The beauty of a free society is that we have the ability to go somewhere else.

We are not talking about some highly trained Marine Sniper here.
The shooter was a pathetic loser without a lick of common sense or decency, a fool and a moron.

And yet he managed to kill 8 people. Underestimating the ability of one's opponent will get you killed. Over estimating one's ability to shoot will do the same.

The fact of the matter is even if the mall was CCW compliant, less than1% of those who would have been carrying would have been able to take the shooter out.

The others who claim to be able are the ones who dream of the pilot passing out so they can land the plane safely and be a hero.

 

[wuchak]

I wanted to add a clarifying point in here since there seems to be common misconception running through this thread. I was not the mall's decision to restrict CCW. They are located in Omaha which has completely restricted it. Unfortunately the Nebraska CCW law did not have a state preemption clause. The mall couldn't have let people carry if they wanted to.

No CCW is all about Financial liability not your rights to Carry a Gun.
(period)
The dead and injured at the Omaha Mall Will have a very tough time suing the mall in this shooting.They can and will say "It's not our fault sue the shooter" And he's dead and no deep pockets.
Now imagine if they say yes you CAN carry. Their liability go off the charts. They would never win in a law suit. They could not get insurance or the cost would be astronomically high the mall could not afford it and have to close.
I know that that sucks but that is what is is. Until the liability and tort laws in each of our state change we will never have a welcome CCW carry in malls and other places......

Fortunately LaVere this is not true. The rest of the country is filled with malls and other stores where CCW is allowed, this mall had the bad luck to be located in Omaha.

 

[LaVere]

I wanted to add a clarifying point in here since there seems to be common misconception running through this thread. I was not the mall's decision to restrict CCW. They are located in Omaha which has completely restricted it. Unfortunately the Nebraska CCW law did not have a state preemption clause. The mall couldn't have let people carry if they wanted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVere
No CCW is all about Financial liability not your rights to Carry a Gun.
(period)
The dead and injured at the Omaha Mall Will have a very tough time suing the mall in this shooting.They can and will say "It's not our fault sue the shooter" And he's dead and no deep pockets.
Now imagine if they say yes you CAN carry. Their liability go off the charts. They would never win in a law suit. They could not get insurance or the cost would be astronomically high the mall could not afford it and have to close.
I know that that sucks but that is what is is. Until the liability and tort laws in each of our state change we will never have a welcome CCW carry in malls and other places......
Fortunately LaVere this is not true. The rest of the country is filled with malls and other stores where CCW is allowed, this mall had the bad luck to be located in Omaha.

I intent of my statement was if Malls or other open places have an open published policy that you have a right to carry and maybe please do.
Their chance of losing big law suits go out of site. It they have no policy they then have plausible deniably. Far better chance of winning.

 

[wuchak]

Agreed that if they have a posted policy that CCW is allowed they could open themselves up to liability. On the flip side if they are in an area where CCW would otherwise be allowed and they choose to post they should be liable for anyone who is injured where the injury could have been prevented if they had been allowed to carry. It would seem their safest bet is just to leave the question of CCW up to the legislature and not post their property either way.

 

[hardhit777]

If i had been in the same situation with my carry weapon ( A Russian Mak.) I would have drawn checked the shooters possition. if he was advancing on me i would throw a few shots at him to make him duck then get the heck out of there. If i had my new carry weapon a 92FS witha back up mag and i had desided to take the risk,i would have got as low to the ground as possible moved under consealment around behind him and engaged from behind. If a had to engage from the side i would drop down and shoot under the clothing racks for his legs/ pelvis. At least that way he wouldnt know where exactly you were shooting from. Atleast not untill after he goes down from multiple shots to the legs. Most people are not going to go as far as the Bank of America shooters did with body armor, If you can take away his mobility you can arleast limit the number of people that he can harm. At least this is how i think i would have handled the situation.

HH

 

[Werewolf]

Interesting thread. A topic well worth discussing...

Lots of good ideas, thoughts etc and somewhere between what the Rambo wannabees advocate and the, only the police are qualified to take action folks, lies a reasonable course of action for those with a CCW.

That said:

That was a very good first hand account, good read.

Yeah it was; if you believe it? Call me a cynic but it's way too convenient. I believed it right up to the point where he started talking CCW and what he might have done if he'd had one and was armed. Then all that stuff about CCW and telling the cops about it and them agreeing.

Sorry - I just don't buy it. That doesn't make the thread any less useful, I just don't believe this so called first hand account.

 

[jfh]

text of an e-mail I just sent to Von Maur--

Please forward this to the appropriate policy-makers in your company.

The outcomes from the three shooting incidents this week--the one at your store in Omaha and the two in Colorado--are strikingly different.

At New Life Church, an armed security guard intervened, and ended a tragedy quickly. At your store, relying on a "no weapons" policy and unarmed guards, eight died before the perpetrator committed suicide.

Clearly, the conventional wisdom offered by your security policy makers is of no value for deterrence or for resolution: Criminals will not obey the law, much less signs, and your customers are further prevented effective self-defense by your no weapons policy.

You have some reflection to do about your store policies--and even more importantly, about the assumptions made about the need to prevent law-abiding citizens with a 'carry permit' from being armed on your premises.

jfh
​

FWIW, I just posted this same text over in "Activism." Feel free to use it as a guideline for any correspondence with them, or others, you may wish to have on this topic--but do not just COPY and PASTE it in, please.

jfh

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Good thing this lady didn't agonize over liability, bystanders, distances, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

A Colorado Springs megachurch instituted security precautions after a shooting at a Denver area mission center earlier Sunday, saving "hundreds of lives" at the New Life Church, senior Pastor Brady Boyd said Monday.

A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard shot and killed a gunman who entered the church Sunday afternoon after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.

Two teens, identified by police as Rachel Works, 16, and Stephanie Works, 18, were killed in what Boyd called "a senseless, random attack."

Boyd said the teens were sisters and were shot in the parking lot along with David Works, 51, described by CNN affiliate KMGH as a relative of the teens. David Works is hospitalized in fair condition with two gunshot wounds, police said.

Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.

"She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon.

Boyd said the gunman, whom police have yet to identify, had no connection to the church.

"He simply showed up on our property yesterday with a gun, with the intention of hurting people, and he did," Boyd said.

The pastor also said New Life had taken extra precautions Sunday after hearing of the attack in Arvada, Colorado, early Sunday morning, in which a gunman killed two people after he was refused lodging at Youth With a Mission live-in Christian missionary center.

"Hundreds of lives were saved yesterday because of the plan that was put in place," said Boyd, who put the number of people on the church campus at the time as 7,000.

 

[BAT1]

Wow what an experience he'll never forget. I would love for him to testify to Congress or the Supreme court. I'm going to start practicing at 25 and beyond. Just a miss could of broke his trance.

 

[strat81]

Some of you guys are hysterical. I had no idea I was in such good company. So, let me get this straight, many of you claim you could've taken the Von Maur shooter out IF:
-You had a clear line of fire
-Sufficient ammunition
-A suitable weapon
-Time to aim (and adjust your POA for 50 yards)
-You were able to keep yourself from shaking like a leaf
-Find adequate cover and/or concealment

The shot NWJT could've made certainly wasn't impossible. But I'd put it at unlikely by the vast majority of shooters in less than perfect conditions.

 

[jfh]

update re proposed e-mail text for Von Maur

I posted this info over in Activism as well, and Zundfolge reports it is a Mall ownership company policy, and not necessarily Von Maur's policy.

Based on his comment, I chased down that Mall company--Simon PLG.

Here is a link to their e-mail for comments.

I sent a revised version of that e-mail to them--i.e., substituted "your mall" for "store", that kind of change. Feel free to use the text here for writing your own....

Jim H.

 

[bogie]

Guys, it really ain't that hard... Try it next time you go shooting. Takes a little concentration, and your bad habits will show up _real_ fast (and then you can eliminate them...), but 50 yard plus handgun shots are a reality. I know, following this, that I'm going to work more at longer distances (I used to, but then got into the close-up thing working on speed), and if I go to a high-profile area, it's going to be a .45 instead of the Kel-Tec...

re: sending notes: Like Jim said, DO NOT reuse other folks' text... Use it as a guideline, but be original. If it looks like they're getting mailbombed by a special interest group, they ignore it. Or lean the other way.

 

[meef]

There's been so much chest thumping going on here recently from those who could make the long shot under extreme duress, and would do this or do that to take out the bad guy that it boggles the mind.

It sounds like an infinity of monkeys on an infinity of bongo drums.

geez....

 

[bogie]

Practice, practice, practice. Your life, and someone else's, may depend on it.

http://www.ihmsa.org/2007 Rules Revised_files/2007 Rules Revised.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533192

And IPSC goes out to 45 metres...

http://www.bullseyepistol.com/comp.htm