Mall Shooting: What 2,794 Other Media Stories Didn’t Mention
19 year-old Robert Hawkins.
I guarantee you the gun-control freaks will be screaming for more gun-control in the days to come following the horrible tragedy yesterday. But their arguments for gun-control are fundamentally flawed. Very few media sources were reporting on how the mall was a gun-free zone, Hot Air was on it, though. Very interesting piece (Nods to One-Shot) here from FoxNews.com:
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.
Foxnews.com article By John R. Lott, Jr. here.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
The folks at HotAir.com were all over the fact that it was a gun-free zone, almost as it was happening.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pmI just love how the news persists on being reluctant to call this bastard what he is. A MURDERER!
He is not the shooter and we should be outraged when he is counted with the ones he killed. There were 8 people murdered and one shithead murderer who killed himself.
The other thing that pissed me off is the friend of this prick that was interviewed stating he does not think any less of his friend because he didn’t do it for fun but just wanted to go out in style. What a little shit.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:25 pm“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
December 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
How many people have to die before the public realizes gun control does not work? The people pushing gun bans know it’s a failed policy, but why do they keep doing it?
Half of me think it’s because they feel the need to push a policy they know won’t work because it fits their ‘narrative’, and they’d rather do that than admit to themselves they’re wrong, and they’ll die before they do that. Voting their consience, or whatever Leftists use.
The other half of me sees darker motives. I hope that half is wrong, but all too often it’s right (it’s never left). That’s the half I use when I ponder, “If I decided to take over the world, what would I do?”
If I ever do become Overlord of Earth, all Pat Dollard posters will be part of my new ruling class.
Except for Franchie.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:38 amIt is high time we end victim disarmament zones. It is now well proven that they only serve to disarm the victims, not the criminals.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:30 amNo Law will remove the Rifle I have in my room. No small kids in the house so I dont have to worry about that. I keep all my rifles locked up like the 7mm and the bigger rifles, but the .22 long semi automatic I have sitting in the corner right by my bed, with 2 10 shot clips loaded beside it. Anyone tries to break into my house and put me and my family in danger, well the .22 doesnt have the knockdown power of a .45 cal but that 10 shot clips unloads pretty dam fast. It is insane that you can be told you cant have guns on you for protection, even tho the bad guy has them anyways.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:37 amTime to Take that sign down ???
December 7th, 2007 at 8:52 amIf it were me I wouldda Blasted His Ass w/ my nice .40
Ummmm big holes
Does anyone have a link to a .jpg of the Westroads Mall Gun-Free Zone sign? I’ve been looking for one, but can’t find it. Surely someone would have uploaded one by now, or if not perhaps someone in Omaha can go grab one for us next to a current Omaha World Herald front page and a Westroads landmark in the background to establish the context and date.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:36 amGuns and weapons by themselves can’t be used to define security and safety. To take it right to the end, we can see now how nuclear weapons, especially larger stocks of them, do not give you more protection — and actually make you less safe!
I’m not going to say take away guns, but instead societies have to think hard about human nature and how to prevent crime. Who was this kid? Was an orphan? Abused? What?
Perhaps we shouldn’t cut education and health care so much in favor of large weapons systems that really shouldn’t and often don’t get used. The USA spends — BORROWS from our supposed enemies — so much. And yet where are we?
We’re not safer, our jobs are shipped overseas, so we can get poison toys and food from the 3rd world. We subsidize the ruin of economies of neighboring countries which forces them to leave their homes and families so the people we subsidize have even cheaper labor. We’ve invaded other countries based on lies and bogus intelligence, ALL subsidized. We’ve ruined our family farms, poisoned our land and water. Looted our Saving & Loans — ever see “It’s a Wonderful Life” with Jimmy Stewart — we live in Potterville’s not Bedford Falls.
The list goes on and on, and more guns by themselves will only make us less safe.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:11 pmI think you guys should approach people who want to ban guns with similar arguments. Banning guns by itself won’t do much when the sources of the problems are not addressed.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:23 pmAnd I’m not saying there should be no consequences for murder and other major crime, including white collar ones. But every one needs to think clearly about why so many innocent people are found in jail.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:30 pm