Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status: Merged

[Thumper]

There is a reason that some people are called "sheep".

Sheep (the animal) are very stupid. If one strays off a cliff do the others say "wow, I'm sure glad I saw him before I fell"? No, one by one every one in the heard will follow the first one off the edge falling to their death.

If a sheep trips and falls on to it's back, it can not right itself and will die unless the shepherd saves it.

Sheep will stand just down the road from food and starve to death, too stupid to go look for it.

Sheep can not change their nature, I fear their human counterparts are much the same.

Some of us are sheep, some are sheep dogs and a very few are shepherds! Tis the way of it, always has been and always will be.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[HotGuns]

Tis the way of it, always has been and always will be.

There ya have it. Thats just the way it is.

[C9H13NO3]

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.

Hypothetically, if you did CCW in a gun free zone and stopped one of these attacks, what are the chances that legal action would be taken against you for violating the gun free zone? Higher chances if it is a state or federally gun free zone rather than private?

[dr_cmg]

Lott's article is pretty good, but he is wrong on at least two counts. First, the gun ban at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah did not apply to LEO. Therefore this statement: "The off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping" is not true.

Second, this statement: "Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?" contains a word that distorts the reality of the situation. The victims at the Westroad Mall were not "disarmed" they were "unarmed." The difference is that most, if not all, of the victims would not have been armed if the mall had put up a 20 foot tall billboard proclaiming that everyone who had a concealed carry permit was welcome to carry their weapon.

As said above these people were sheep. No matter how many times shootings take place in gun free zones they will continue to go to these places. These people (sheeple) believe that proclaiming some place to be a "gun free zone" makes it so. Maybe if there were shootings in gun free zones everyday for a month or so it might penetrate that gun free zones are not necessarily "gun free", but if these places ceased being "gun free" the sheep would still not arm. In fact it is quite likely they would quit going if the no guns sign came down. For them it is not the reality that matters, but the feeling.

Remember what Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said when the bill to prevent Virginia colleges from prohibiting persons with permits from carrying on campus:

I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.

The emphasis is mine. It didn't matter whether the parents, students, faculty and visitors were in fact safe. It only mattered that they feel safe. Today at Virginia Tech people don't feel as safe, but firearms are still prohibited.

[Bark'n]

Very good post Doc... +1

[rhinokrk]

"the gun ban at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah did not apply to LEO."

The signs on the doors did/do not apply to anyone who could/can own a firearm legally here in the Great State of Utah. If a spokesman of the faculty asks you to leave then by law you must, or face trespassing laws. But Posting a sign here it only makes the weak feel safer.

[Scott]

Thread running here:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ad.php?t=36925

[aznav]

"Our number one priority has been to ensure the safety and well-being of the shoppers and employees of the mall. We are extremely grateful to all the law enforcement agencies for the leadership they have provided." This came from the mall's website. Whew! I'm glad to know that. Don' want no whacko gun nuts carryin'.
ps. If that's the mall's number one priority then number two on them!

[aznav]

No it wont. History proves otherwise.

Exactly what I thought!

[Supertac45]

Sad that no one returned fire for one reason or another.

[Sticks]

Somehow we, and I mean all of us here on Defensivecarry.com, NRA and other forums of the like, have got to find a way to get the media to do a prime time story based on the fact that these "Gun-Free Zones" only apply to the law abiding citizen - and the criminal is going to ignore that sign, because he is non-law abiding citizen and will feel just as safe conducting his business there as the "Sheeple" do.

I think I am going to start e-mailing all of my local news anchors this,

Dear (insert anchor here),

In light of the recent mass shootings that have occurred in our great nation, they were all in "Gun-Free Zones", but that fact was NOT mentioned other than a very brief or subtle manner if at all.

"Gun-Free Zones" Did You Know . . .

• Concealed Carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in the nation?
• CCW holders must undergo an extensive background check with the police department and the FBI?
• CCW holders are less likely to be arrested for a crime than a law enforcement officer?
• Many, not all, CCW holders spend more time practicing with their weapon than law enforcement officers.
• That only law-abiding citizens will honor the "Gun-Free Zones"? Criminals will ignore it. The "Gun-Free Zone" signs assures the criminal that he/she is safe in these areas if they decide to commit a crime.
• Those of us who have gone through the tedious process of obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon have no desire to jeopardize that right. So we will honor those areas if we choose to do business there.
  
  But think about this: If you ever find yourself in the unfortunate situation of facing someone who intends to do you and/or your friends/family harm and rob you, or engage in random shooting, you may wish for a law-abiding citizen who just happens to have the ability to help you in this situation.
  
  I hope you will consider looking at this objectively and doing a story on these points.
  

What do you think, more harm than good if I do this?