Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status Thursday, December 06, 2007 By John R. Lott, Jr. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html 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 <http:>Mall</http:>, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property. <!-- QUIGO --> <!-- QUIGO --> <script type="text/javascript"> /*<![CDATA[*/ var adsonar_placementId="1307847",adsonar_pid="144757",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=190;adsonar_zh=200,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com"; qas_writeAd(); /*]]>*/ </script><iframe name="adsonar_serve221211" id="adsonar_serve221211" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="http://ads.adsonar.com/adserving/getAdsFox.jsp?placementId=1307847&pid=144757&ps=-1&zw=190&zh=200&url=http%3A//www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C315563%2C00.html&v=5" frameborder="0" height="200" scrolling="no" width="190"></iframe> 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 <http:>8,000</http:> 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.
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G My Dad lives in Omaha and when I talked to him about the shooting he told me that a large majority of business there have no CC allowed signs in their windows. Like I said before, that's just great!!! People wanting to defend themselves, but not on somebody elses property. Surely has to do with business owners not wanting to get sued if there is a gun accident inside the business or a real shooting.
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G The sad truth here is it's all about numbers , numbers of dollars that is . It is unfortunate that there are careless gun owners who do have accidental discharges , there are also unprepared , untrained or undetermined gun owners . The media has of course blown every incident they can find of all of these so out of proportion that business think all of us and even most cops are a bunch of "Barney Fifes" fools and accidents waiting to happen . If a CCW fires and hits an innocent , had an AD in their store or drew it and failed to follow through and God forbid had their weapon taken away by a perp and it was later used to hurt anyone the store would be facing a huge lawsuit . These are the only things they are considering in making these decisions despite the extreme unlikelihood of any of them happening . No business will change their mind until a licensed CCW holder is shot and can make the claim they were denied the ability to defend themselves that they had according to all the laws of their state . Only if a licensed person sues and wins a huge settlement will things be reconsidered and then more than likely only in that particular state . You will have to be able to prove in court that you suffered real damages due to this policy , not just the possibility that you could suffer damages due to it .
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G You got it exactly right. The bad thing is that if there is a lawsuit, it should be against the person that brought the gun in and not the business. Lawyers that take these kinds of BS cases, gota love em, when does the season open??? Not to mention stupid juries that award under ridiculous circumstances. I live in Oregon and have only seen two businesses that had a sign on their entrance. One of them was really laughable; they even said you could not bring a knife in. I’m sure in Portland you would probably see signs everywhere. Don’t have to worry about that because I don’t live near there and have no desire to go there.
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G I simply pay the same amount of attention to those signs that the mass killers do....none. That's the purpose of "concealed".
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G Amen, or I don't enter their business at all.
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G I typicaly just avoid the busines all together since giveing those places my money feels like Im donateing it to the Brady campaign. The only 2 ways I go into those places is if its to let the manager know WHY I wont be spending money there (and maybe give them a reciept from their non posted competitors) or if its a place I HAVE to go that is restricted by our states laws like government buildings and such, then I generaly pay no attention to the sign. If its a store though I just give my money to places less likely to use it to take away my rights everywhere and where Im less likely to be attacked or be the only one ready to deal with it if there is a shooter.
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G So When will we start seeing metal detectors and bag searches to get into the mall??
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G Wouldn't that be GREAT!!! Having TSA like morons at the mall entrances.
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G Wunnerful!! The merchants would just LOVE the extra security on, say, Black Friday, not to mention the rest of the days. On the other hand, the mall owners might get rich selling permits to carry inside the mall. On the third hand, I wonder if the mall morons would be as efficient as the TSA morons. The mind is boggled with possibilities, including the return of the mom and pop shops to serve the former mall rats.
Re: Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's G Im still hopeing to se some MEGA lawsuits against the owners of the mall and such gun free zones when ever shootings like these happen. I figure that while SOME of the posted places are in fact anti gun, the majority of them are posted because they or their insurance company thinks lisenced people carrying guns would put them at risk for liability but that haveing them unarmed wouldnt. So I figure if they loose several million over makeing their customers easy targets when tey are there then maybe they will get smart and take down their signs so that we dont see so many of these slaughters and when they happen it ends like the Church shooting with a much lower body count.
