Comments:Nine killed in Omaha, Nebraska mall shooting

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments


You really can't feel safe anywhere anymore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.230.32 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...except perhaps Canada, Japan, Europe, Australia, etc where the guns laws are better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.249.210 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And violence from other sources is worse. 66.171.209.91 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
like what the USA has much worse knife crime and general violence then the Canada, Japan, Europe, Australia.--82.45.210.78 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Omaha, and I just want to say I thank everyone for the support they're giving the families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.163.40 (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Is Enough?[edit]

How can a 20 year old kid get a gun? What kind of country allows this? When will they learn and change gun control laws? How many people have to die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.10.49 (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 20 year old is not a kid, he is an adult capable of making his own decisions. 66.171.209.91 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
how is a 20 year old an adult he cant even drink, hes got at most 4 years real life experience and he did make a choice, maybe he shouldnt of had a gun!?--82.45.210.78 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Harvey Oswald got a gun to go hunting with when he was 20 and living in the Soviet Union. Not every totalitarian society has to ban them, you know. Safety First 07:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing guns...[edit]

I can't see why any country would allow guns. They create more problems than they solve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.45.66 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets equip the armies with rocks. When a violent meth head breaks into your home you show them your large rock, I bet they'll back off. 66.171.209.91 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ofc when he says country he means general public, not armies! wait maybe i should try again *redneck voice*erm da army has guns but we dont dat aint fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.210.78 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shooter was a felon, it is against the law for him to posess a firearm. Laws will not be obeyed by those who intend to kill innocent people.

Disposable people[edit]

All this started over $17. Neither an old gun nor felony convictions nor romantic disappointments are sufficient to move a nut to murder; only getting fired from a crummy job at MacDonald's can do that. Because supposedly he stole $17. We have a society where people don't really get any better - no matter how educated or experienced a person is all they become is an aging employee to be gotten rid of, but every black mark - whether an illicit bottle of booze or an unjust firing or an online obscenity or a financial problem - is branded forever into the malefactor's soul, by which I mean of course the collection of dossiers and identification cards that define a man's core essence; there is no other. The poor, the ill, the stupid, the unsuitable are supposed to crawl off and die - there is no death penalty for murder but there's a death penalty for poverty. And some wretched people, God help them, try to fight back in the wrong way. Do not blame our ancestral freedoms for the rare ricochets of the constant attack upon the downtrodden. 70.15.116.59 13:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure where your going with the "only getting fired from a crummy job..." because as i see it thats all he had left!
  • There was no family, (id like to hear them justify why they through their son out)
  • There was no medication for his depretion (id like to hear bush explain why the mentaly ill dont get any help)
  • There was no money (i might be wrong but i dont think america gives to the poor)
  • There was no hope (with no chance of getting another job after stealing $17)

perhaps apart from a gun policy review America needs a society review, supporting the poor and ill, actually helps the rest off you, it cuts down on crime ( as people have the money/meds they need to live) and it cuts down on killings (id guess that most of the atrocities are committed by people who figure "why not" as there's nothing else to do! )

Or perhaps people need to take personal responsibility for themselves. 66.171.209.91 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did take personal responsibility for himself... the last time he pulled the trigger. But when someone intends suicide you have nothing left to threaten him. 70.15.116.59 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did he choose to kill 8 innocent people and "go out in style", wouldn't it be better (financially and morally if the government had given him medication for his depression (dunno the cost but its got to be less than the price of 8 lives and a few days of mall takings)--82.45.210.78 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many killers have taken psychiatric medications; sometimes the drugs help them to become more active, make plans, get the gun and go to work... I don't think these drugs protect society, nor should that be their purpose. The way society should address depression is by giving people real hope, not pills. 70.15.116.59 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completly agree i should have said treatment, which may or may not include medication depending on the situation --82.45.210.78 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.28 (talk) [reply]

Here Today[edit]

I think its really sad how somone chooses when to end others lives! It's very important to let your loved ones know how much they mean to you.


Jessica Calvin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.247.241.30 (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But his parents had rejected him, he was scrounging of his mate, he had no loved ones! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.210.78 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that makes it any better what he did? 66.171.209.91 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not step into his shoes for a second, the same way you clearly dont care that he needed help, he clearly didnt care that those 8 people didnt deserve to die!--82.45.210.78 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wanted fame? He has it now. —69.159.25.35 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Those he harmed and those in his town might remember him. But fame? These people are all over the news for a few weeks, then the world forgets. The damage they do, however, is lasting on a handful of blameless strangers. Wozocoxonoy 16:30, 8 December 2007 (GMT)

I don't know why, but for some reason it really makes me sad and angry when senior citizens and the like are killed. There's just something about the thought of these people, having been through so much, would randomly some to such a painful and frightening end. I dunno. That's just my two bits on this one. - TK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.76.61 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Shooting in Omaha[edit]

This mall was posted as a gun free zone making it illegal for licensed citizens to carry a firearm on the property, so the mall chose to deny the ability of self defense to it's employees and customers yet never provided any replacement security or weapons screening system to insure thier safety. I hope there are lawsuits aplenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.244.196 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC) This is the correct assesment. Westroads set policy that did not allow its patrons to defend themselves. I would also like to point out that shooter did not obey the no-gun policy.[reply]

OMG yeah if theyd all had guns that would have been sooo much better! because in the time it takes to him to shoot some1, somebody else would have shot him, i forgot all Americans are supper heroes and OFC Hollywood taught me that good guys are quicker on the draw! So if somebody else would of had a gun hed of still killed at least 1 person before being shot probably 2/3, and then people could of got caught in the crossfire so the death toll could have been even higher. BUT wait if hed had no gun then nobody would have died! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.28 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supper heroes, like Chef Boyardee, Uncle Ben, and the Green Giant. --SVTCobra 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The weapon used was a Russian made SKS rifle 7.62X39 caliber circa 1952/53, not an AK47 as has been reported in the media! I also heard it was stolen!!! Same as the Russian designed Chinese Type 56 rifle used early in the Vietnam war against the French and then us. Many of these have been imported over the years. Most during the time before the Clinton gun ban went into effect! Big demand on these rifles insued by Clinton's Gun Ban!!! What do you gun banning Commie LIBS think about that!!!

Should we thank our friends the Russians and the Chinese for taking advantage of our FUBAR politicians? Think about that when you buy that cheap POS Chinese made motorcycle or mini ATV for your kid this Christmas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.63.206.133 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could sort out your FUBAR politics! American companies have no problem selling guns to people with child armies so why should foreign companies have a problem sending them to america! you should think about that the next time you buy anything "made in the USA" infact you should probably actually listen to that song!--80.195.234.92 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SKS rifle, like the one used in the massacre, was never "covered" under the "assault weapons" ban from 1994 and therefore were never "reintroduced" after the ban expired in 2004. I deleted the part of the text that suggested that the SKS was banned and made "available" after 2004, because that is factual wrong. I say again, the SKS was never "covered" under the federal "assault weapons" ban and neither is under the California or any other applicable state's definition of an "assault rifle". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.141.185 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the person above, name the "American companies have no problem selling guns to people with child armies." NAME THEM!!! Give us the facts. Oh, I'm sorry, COMMIE LIBS don't base their opinions on fact!!! BTW, What part of my politics should I sort out? Come on you POS, LET ME HAVE IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.63.206.133 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Comments:Nine_killed_in_Omaha,_Nebraska_mall_shooting&oldid=542819"