FOX News steps up...!!?!>!?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Lykoi
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Mesquite

FOX News steps up...!!?!>!?

Post by Lykoi »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

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.

suprised to see FoxNews post this...
None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.
John Milton
User avatar
nitrogen
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Sachse, TX
Contact:

Post by nitrogen »

Was the mall actually a gun free zone?
I'm not up on the law up there. Are malls by law gun free zones, or was it the equivilant of "Posted" there?
.השואה... לעולם לא עוד
Holocaust... Never Again.
Some people create their own storms and get upset when it rains.
--anonymous
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Post by seamusTX »

I just want to point out that this essay is by John Lott Jr.

- Jim
Lykoi
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Mesquite

Post by Lykoi »

nitrogen wrote:Was the mall actually a gun free zone?
I'm not up on the law up there. Are malls by law gun free zones, or was it the equivilant of "Posted" there?
yes the mall has signs posted...
None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.
John Milton
User avatar
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Post by ELB »

nitrogen wrote:Was the mall actually a gun free zone?
I'm not up on the law up there. Are malls by law gun free zones, or was it the equivilant of "Posted" there?
Here's blog by a guy in Omaha, in which he notes he has been to the mall and verifies there are signs. He as several posts on the shooting, just scroll down thru them.

http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/


elb
doejohn
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:25 pm

Post by doejohn »

It would be awesome if John Lott Jr could tell the story of the CHL'er who shot three bad guys, and no doubt probably saved lives.
Penn
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:47 pm

Post by Penn »

doejohn wrote:It would be awesome if John Lott Jr could tell the story of the CHL'er who shot three bad guys, and no doubt probably saved lives.
Uh oh
Lykoi
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Mesquite

Post by Lykoi »

doejohn wrote:It would be awesome if John Lott Jr could tell the story of the CHL'er who shot three bad guys, and no doubt probably saved lives.
don't even go there... every thread mentioning this stuff is gone, and i'd like this article to remain for many to see.
Last edited by Lykoi on Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.
John Milton
User avatar
Photoman
Senior Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:21 pm

Post by Photoman »

Better get that "c" word out of your post or this one will be gone too.
Lykoi
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Mesquite

Post by Lykoi »

Photoman wrote:Better get that "c" word out of your post or this one will be gone too.
was unaware it was a "bad word" but edited anyways.
None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.
John Milton
KBCraig
Banned
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: FOX News steps up...!!?!>!?

Post by KBCraig »

Lykoi wrote:suprised to see FoxNews post this...
As already noted, it's an opinion piece by John Lott. Don't assume it reflects the official Fox News stance. Fox also carries Radley Balko's column; as a libertarian writer for CATO and Reason, he's firmly against Fox's neocon tendencies. They still carry his writings, though.
Lykoi
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Mesquite

Re: FOX News steps up...!!?!>!?

Post by Lykoi »

KBCraig wrote:
Lykoi wrote:suprised to see FoxNews post this...
As already noted, it's an opinion piece by John Lott. Don't assume it reflects the official Fox News stance. Fox also carries Radley Balko's column; as a libertarian writer for CATO and Reason, he's firmly against Fox's neocon tendencies. They still carry his writings, though.

never said it was a "stance" from Fox... read the post you quoted... they "posted" it.
None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.
John Milton
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

I haven't watched much news the last couple of days. An opinion piece by John Lott on the website is fine. But what I would really like to see is mention in the hard news segments they run on TV that the mall was a "gun free zone" and that this did not stop the killer from bringing his gun.

I did see quite a bit of coverage of the fact that the police response "only" took 6 minutes. And in fact, this is pretty good - about as good as one could expect. And still, 8 died. I would like to see the reporters state the obvious, that even the best possible police response cannot prevent many people from being killed.

The only thing that could have saved people in this case, just as in the VT shooting, is if someone had been present on the spot to intervene immediately when the shooting started.

What we really need is many more people getting CHL's and actually carrying their guns wherever they go.

Secondly, public accommodations should be required by law to allow carry by CHL's.

Gun free zones are idiotic. All they do is facilitate mass shootings like this one. It's time they were abolished.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
Lykoi
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Mesquite

Post by Lykoi »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
The only thing that could have saved people in this case, just as in the VT shooting, is if someone had been present on the spot to intervene immediately when the shooting started.
I'm going to agree with 90% of your post... but this quote is not correct...

this kid was a walking time bomb and it was known by multiple people...
The "shooter" in Nebraska was

1) A felon, which means he could not legally own/posess or control a firearm.

2) Had multiple charges & convictions in the past, and some were still pending -- two seperate charges of possession with intent to deliver drugs, and charges / convictions of: alcohol posession by a minor, third-degree assault, theft, unlawful tobacco use by a minor, disorderly conduct.

3) Was fired from his job for being accused of theft.

4) Had previously been treated with anti-depressants.

5) A high school drop out.

6) Had essentially been kicked out of his home.

7) Had stolen the weapon that he used to commit the crime.

8) 'Responsible' adults knew he had a firearm at least 1 day before the incident, and it's safe to assume they also knew of his criminal background since they took him in after he was kicked out of his home. These 'responsible' adults did not report this "felon in possesion of a firearm" to authorities.

9) previously made homicidal threats toward his stepmother.

10) 2 weeks before the mall murders he threatened to kill a 16 yo girl, kill her family, and burn down her house.

11) he was hospitalized twice for psychiatric problems in the past, for months at a time.

the ONLY way to stop this is not to have EVERY citizen armed (as nice as that would be) but to find the reason this Kid was left unchecked... This guy was more obvious a threat than Cho, and no one did anything... It's going to be a great day that no one will know about when these guys are stopped before this can occur.. but the only way to do that is to have people be aware of these people and make decisions to protect the lives of others before going home and watching TV while ignoring the facts.
None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.
John Milton
KBCraig
Banned
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: FOX News steps up...!!?!>!?

Post by KBCraig »

Lykoi wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
Lykoi wrote:suprised to see FoxNews post this...
As already noted, it's an opinion piece by John Lott. Don't assume it reflects the official Fox News stance. Fox also carries Radley Balko's column; as a libertarian writer for CATO and Reason, he's firmly against Fox's neocon tendencies. They still carry his writings, though.

never said it was a "stance" from Fox... read the post you quoted... they "posted" it.
I don't know how we got off on the wrong foot and seem to be at odds, when we basically agree here. Sorry if I contributed to the misunderstanding.

To clarify: this is an opinion column from a contracted writer, posted to foxnews.com. This is not a news article or segment that appeared on Fox News.

I only want that to be clear to casual observers who might not notice the distinction.

Kevin
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”