XCR Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status
Thursday, December 06, 2007

By John R. Lott, Jr.


The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.

A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.

But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.

When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.

Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.

People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.

The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Easy solution for this one. Just make the signs prohibiting guns a little bigger, that way there is a greater chance that a potential killer will spot them.

I should write to my representatives, I'm sure they'll love this idea...

:duh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I took this post from another forum that I am a member of.



Once again, we are confronted with another evil human being who made a conscious decision to destroy innocent lives for his own selfish motives. Apparently in this case, as was made clear in his suicide note, this child of Satan decided to become "famous" while "going out in style." Shame on him.

Now I must also say, Shame on us. Yes, shame on us, a nation of cowards. shame on our legislators. Shame on the liberal and conservative alike. Shame on law enforcement. Shame on gun owners. Shame on you and me.

We all know history. We all know human nature. We all know that evil men will commit evil acts regardless of laws meant to curb such behavior. Yet we still tolerate foolish and cowardly men and women, who push evil and detrimental anti-gun laws which only succeed in creating more helpless victims. These men and women I speak of are not only our elected officials, but our own family and friends.

We should be ashamed because we won't learn from the past. We won't admit to ourselves that we alone are responsible for our own safety. We allowed the disarmament crowd to convince us that others are responsible for our safety, and that we are brutes and wierdo's for wanting to be armed. I believe that to call 911 when we are in danger, is the height of immoral cowardice. To ask anyone to risk their life to save my life, when I am perfectly capable and better suited to the task, because I am at the point of contact with the criminal, Is wrong. No matter what the person is paid or what his title is. They somehow convinced us that to call someone "Police Officer" gives them supernatural ability to make life and death decisions, along with the physical abilty to shoot a firearm above and beyond the mere mortal "civilian".

I know that this is a pro-gun board, and that many here have given time and money in the fight for our God given rights to self-defense. But even the most vigilant among us (myself included) must admit to falling victim to fear when we should speak-out boldly in defense of that right. We should no longer tolerate anyone touting the "If we could only get rid of the guns, we'd be much safer." Line. That includes our family members, co-workers, and politicians alike. They need to be slapped in the face (So to speak) with the facts. And be told outright that they are part of the problem and are cowards for being so.

I for one am sick and tired of cringing at a news report of another "gunman" on the rampage. fearing that this may be the last straw in the debate over gun-rights. wondering what gun will be banned next. We are playing right into the hands of those who would see us totally dis-armed. They are real and they will not stop until they win or we stop them. How many lives have already been lost to criminals because of politically correct thought and the foolish laws bred by that thought?

Modern day America is in denial. We are a backwards nation with high-tech gadgets. We refuse to see the truth on this issue. Bad men do bad things to good people. Good people must sometimes shed blood to survive and to protect order in a society. This has never changed in all of human history. Why do we think were somehow immune to this reality?

Shame on us all if we don't correct this terrible wrong which has been perpetrated upon us and perpetuated for decades. Lives are at stake. They always have been.

by H. Nipps
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Well said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
I stumbled across a news video from Charlotte where they reported a more than doubling of guns being stolen from cars. Last year it was something like 266 and this year is already over 550. Apparently thieves take advantage of gun free zones by breaking into cars looking for handguns.

The video suggested leaving your gun at home if you know you will be headed to a gun free zone, probably a good idea, but a better idea would be to suggest fewer gun free zones.

http://www.wcnc.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=198859
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
Another idea would be to get one of those single pistol safes that aren't that expensive and have it bolted to the truck floor so they just can't walk away from it.

IMHO a gun should NEVER be left unattended in a vehicle as it is far too easy to break into a car. This type of statistic, and incident of theft is only more ammo for the anti gun lobby. They will find out about it and use it against us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
In general, I agree. The place for a gun isn't a car. If by gun we mean pistol or revolver.

The thing is, a pistol is just a pistol. Or more specifically, a pistol is what we fight our way back to the longarm that we shouldn't have left behind in the first place with.

I've got a truck (always liked trucks) and behind the seat is a 12 gauge loaded with double ought and slugs. That's the "this never leaves the truck except for cleaning / lube" piece - a Winchester Defender. Why a Defender? 'Cause if I lose it, I won't cry.

Most times there's a battle rifle there as well (in addition to, not instead of). Sometimes a battle carbine, or a long-range rig. These cycle in and out depending on what I'm doing at that time. Right now there's just the Defender in there, 'cause the M14 is on the table soaking ;)

The thing is, if you NEED something, then you NEED it. I'm willing to take a chance on someone breaking into my truck to get it, just so that in the off chance I need it, it's still there. If you don't want to chance losing an M14, put an Enfield 2A in there - that's PLENTY rifle.

Then again, where I live, I carry full-time. The only 'gun free zones' here that apply to me are federal buildings, court rooms (in the secured area) and the secured area of airports. Since I don't frequent those places (GRIN).....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
I'm not saying that the pistol should be carried in the safe, but that's a good idea if you travel over the state line )if required) what I am saying is that if you leave your pistol unattended in any vehicle it should be secured, even if you gun lock it to the seat support or something. Just so a kid or thug can't walk away with it.

These incidents only go to fuel the anti gun lobby, and illegal guns on the street are a real problem for LEO who might run across one, or more!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,475 Posts
good article for sure. I don't have a 'car gun' because I'm carrying my g27 all the time, but I've kicked around the idea of a truck rifle for a while now. The main requirements are reliable and cheap. The list includes cheap ak's, sks's, that keltec folding rifle, mosin's, enfield's, and perhaps a mossberg defender or something...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Gun Free Zone = Free Murder Zone
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top