|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status
Thursday, December 06, 2007
By John R. Lott, Jr.
E-Mail Print Digg This! del.icio.us
AP
Robert Hawkins
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. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:51 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/
Why carry a gun? because a whole cop would be too heavy. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:32 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
MCRGO, wife and I both belong.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:09 am |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:40 pm |
|
|
willy
F L I N T O I D
|
| As a Cpl holder . I never go into a GUN FREE ZONE, Since The Criminal will be the only person with a Gun, Lke OMAHA, NO ONE had a GUN to Shoot Back. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:10 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
willy schreef:
As a Cpl holder . I never go into a GUN FREE ZONE, Since The Criminal will be the only person with a Gun, Lke OMAHA, NO ONE had a GUN to Shoot Back.
Not even the Mall Security was armed. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:33 pm |
|
|
willy
F L I N T O I D
|
By the Way
Bush is planning on a trip to Poland, He wants to find out Why the POLLs are giving him a low rating |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:15 pm |
|
|
Ponycar
F L I N T O I D
|
| "Gun free zone" to a criminal means, " target rich enviroment". |
|
|
|
Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:07 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
wow. i just watched the Joe Horn thing in texas where he shot 2 burglers
leaving his neighbors house with booty. yes, he shot them in the back.
this is scary because he didn't know if the thieves had hurt someone in
the house or not. he could possibly go to jail. just does not seem right.
i may not have killed them but i may very well have stopped them with
a carefully placed shot and then i'd probably get sued. does anyone
know the law in michigan? if i caught them in my house i'd definitely
shoot em' but, the neighbor's house may be a different matter legally....
wheres terry when you need him...oh wait, i'll bet 2tap knows!!!!  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:18 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
The six-bill Castle Doctrine Package passed with bi-partisan, supermajority support in both houses of the Michigan legislature:
SB 1046, sponsored by Sen. Alan Cropsey, outlines rebuttal presumptions for justified use of self-defense. The bill makes it clear that there is no "duty to retreat" if a person is in a place where they have a legal right to be.
SB 1185, sponsored by Sen. Ron Jelinek, allows for the award of court and attorney fees in civil cases where it was determined a person acted in accordance with the Self Defense Act and where civil immunities apply.
HB 5548, sponsored by Rep. Tim Moore, gives civil immunities to persons acting in accordance with the Self Defense Act, preventing criminals and their families from suing law-abiding citizens.
HB 5153, sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, puts the burden of proof on the prosecutor to show that a person acted unlawfully in the application of force, rather than the person using the force having to prove they acted lawfully.
HB 5142, sponsored by Rep. Tom Casperson, expands the definition of "dwelling" to include a person’s garage, barn, backyard, etc.
HB 5143, sponsored by Rep. Rick Jones, creates the Self Defense Act and specifies that it is not a crime to use force or deadly force to defend oneself if that person is not breaking any laws when defensive force was used. The person must be facing imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
"On behalf of all NRA members in Michigan, I want to thank each of the bills’ chief sponsors for their leadership in seeing these measures become law," concluded Cox. "The Castle Doctrine is about putting the law back on the side of the victim, the way it’s supposed to be."
-nra-
[/img] |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:30 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
so, if i saw someone stealing or robbing from my neighbor i couldn't
do anything about it right? only if i was the victim correct?   |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:35 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| If it was me I would arm myself, call 911, stay on the line, get a good description of the perps, tag no. car description. I would not try to act like law enforcement and confront them unless they approached my residence or became a direct threat. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:44 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
and that must be where mr.horn went wrong...i feel sorry for him. i
hope he can ger some leeway.... well.........thanks 2tap!! |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:46 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:53 am |
|
|
Ponycar
F L I N T O I D
|
| I think that 2 main questions that Mr. Horn will have to answer is 1) Was there an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and 2) Did he act in self defense of himself, or the self defense of others? I really think that this is going to be a problem for him. In the law enforcement world, there was a supreme court ruling called Tennessee vs Garner. It was a case in memphis TN in 1981 where a 15 year old kid was shot and killed by police while fleeing from a residential burglary. The supreme court ruled that Police may only fire at a fleeing person when the officer knows that person commited a crime that involved death or serious bodily harm, and their escape would pose the threat of death or serious bodily harm to others. Even though Mr. Horn is not law enforcement, I think Tennessee vs Garner will have some influence on this cae. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:10 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
