1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Media fails to show that malls are "Gun Free" zones.

Discussion in 'Activism' started by Crow1108, Dec 6, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Crow1108

    Crow1108 Well-Known Member

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

    Thought it hit the nail on the head.

  2. jeepmor

    jeepmor Well-Known Member

    The media tells you only what perpetuates their agenda until forced otherwise. Even though Fox reported this, I don't see them actually embracing it as a liberal media organization, rather maybe the person the wrote the piece.

    However, I think they are finally coming around.

    sorry, did not read piece, just the pasted part.
  3. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    This was a clearly marked editorial piece written by John Lott. So its not quite the same thing as a "reported" piece.

    Still nice to see it on Fox's front page.
  4. k-frame

    k-frame Well-Known Member

    From a slightly different POV.

    That opinion piece is a guy beating up on "The Media" so he can make his points. Good points mind you, but IMO he's just using The Media as his whipping boy.

    The reason that "The Media" doesn't mention that the mall was a gun-free zone in the primary stories is for the same reason that "The Media" doesn't mention what color clothes the victims were wearing - it's irrelevant to the core of the story which is that some nutjob just killed a bunch of innocent people.

    A newspaper or broadcaster has only so much space and time to report the critical details of a major breaking story like Omaha, or Columbine or Va Tech. From a news standpoint the gun-free issue is not relevant to the key events.

    UNLESS...someone being interviewed said they had a weapon and didn't draw (for whatever reason) OR someone with a CCW took the guy out OR someone in the story (surviving victim, scared shopper, LEO, mall security, whatever) said that the situation was enabled by being a gun-free zone. THEN the gun-free issue becomes central to the story.

    As it eventually did in Va. Tech the gun-free issue will surface. But for now, it's secondary to the core story which is who, what, why, when, and how (or sadly, how many).
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2007
  5. jeepmor

    jeepmor Well-Known Member

    I don't agree, we could easily finish your sentece....a bunch of innocent people in a gun free zone. It's not irrelevant at all, the media just chooses not to mention it. With the VT event this year, gun free zone should not be overlooked whatsover. This event makes this point quite relevant. Needless to say, the media will still leave it out until they have to bring it into light.
  6. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    I would contend (and I believe Mr Lott makes this point as well) that the "gun free zone" status of the venue of the attack is as important to the core of the story (if not more important) than the make/model/caliber of the firearm used. We always hear the make/model/caliber (in this case a 7.66mm AKSKS :scrutiny: ) but we are never told that the shooting happened in a Gun Free Zone.
  7. RoadkingLarry

    RoadkingLarry Well-Known Member

    Now wait just one cotton pickin' minute! Do you folks mean to tell me that the nutjob actually took a gun into a "Gun Free Zone"? I thought those cute little "No Guns" signs on the doors kept that from happening. Being that the 10-12 laws that this whacko broke to commit this act didn't stop him it seems oblivious that we need several more in order to stop the next slaughter before its too late, its for the childrens, if it only saves one life......
  8. htxred

    htxred Member

    the media was also calling the kid a "sniper" at first..

    who knew snipers randomly blew off shots.
  9. k-frame

    k-frame Well-Known Member

    Which is why that's an opinion piece Mr. Lott wrote. In his opinion it's relevant. I would argue that most editors consider it unrelated to the central story. Not uninteresting, just unrelated. Many (maybe most) commercial / retail areas are gun-free. Which makes it the norm. So to insert comments about the mall being a gun-free zone -when it has no bearing on the central aspects of the story - would be to insert an editorial slant to the story. And which is what most people accuse the media of doing. :scrutiny:

    I agree this guy did not go to, say, the local police station to kill people; clearly crazy doesn't always equal stupid. But he could also have done this in a church, a bus station, an airport, a barbershop. And many of those these places may be or are gun-free. None of it has anything to do with why this guy went nuts and started shooting people. As said before, if someone shot back THEN the gun-free zone becomes an interesting point to the story. But not until then.
  10. jeepmor

    jeepmor Well-Known Member

    But everything to do with WHERE this guy chose to go to shoot people. It's entirely relevant, it's just left out because that's the way the news organizations work. It was central in this kid's decision of where to commit the massacre, it should be central to the story, period.
  11. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    And I would argue that 1) they are wrong and 2) they choose to pretend it is unrelated to the central story and leave out this fact because it doesn't fit their political agenda (in addition, they put the make/model/caliber of the weapon used IN the story to fit this same political agenda).
  12. jeepmor

    jeepmor Well-Known Member

    I'm with Zundfolge, I was just chiming back in to make the same points.

    The media, the same as our government, does not get to pick the relevancy of any points they choose to share. The truth IS relevant. They just place themselves on a pedestal and tout that they are providing relevant details because of the agendas involved and the truth gets in the way of said agendas.

    How is a media to support anti-gun legislation when the hard data supports the opposite. They only provide the talking points that support your position, none that oppose it.

    Give it a little while, Helmke will being chiming in soon enough saying that banning guns would have prevented this massacre, all the while, ignoring that this was a venue in which guns WERE banned.
  13. k-frame

    k-frame Well-Known Member

    Make and model is relevant. What did he use? How did he cause this much damage? Might he have caused more? Was he far away? Close up? Skilled? Unskilled? How did he acquire the weapon? Legally or illegally? (Illegally as it turns out). Was the weapon "legal" for that area (yeah, I know, another discussion...but it would be even more relevant if it was found that he was using a banned full-auto weapon.)

    And yes, where he chose was important - he chose a place where he could do a lot of damage, lots of targets. But like I said before MANY places are gun free and that is viewed as the norm. That's the difference. If he chose to shoot up a cop shop or a gun store, then it's a different story. It's not about some perceived agenda, it's about facts being relevant to the story.

    Put it another way.

    Reporter includes in the story "Mall XYZ is a gun-free zone."

    Editor reads story, says "Yeah? So what? Did this guy say anything about that in his note? Did a cop tell you that fact made the guy pick this place as opposed to any one of a hundred other public places?"


    "Then take it out. Or show how it's relevant to why this guy went nuts. Or that he deliberately chose that mall because it's a gun-free zone and not because it was full of Christmas shoppers. Deadline in 5 minutes so get it done or take it out."
  14. USAFNoDAk

    USAFNoDAk Well-Known Member

    And I would argue that 1) they are wrong and 2) they choose to pretend it is unrelated to the central story and leave out this fact because it doesn't fit their political agenda (in addition, they put the make/model/caliber of the weapon used IN the story to fit this same political agenda).

    News editors' ideologies in play:

    Assault weapons are BAD! Make sure our reporting to the public shows that an assault weapon was used so that it will make it easier to ban them.

    Gun free zones are GOOD. Make sure we don't report that this massacre with a gun took place in a mall that banned guns. That might wake the public up to the foolishness of these "gun free zones". We've got an agenda, gull darn it, and we'll have our quill pens ripped from our cold dead fingers before we'll print a story that paints any gun ownership in a positive light! Now get out there and report with as heavy a bias against firearms and the second amendment as you think you can get away with! It's for the children!
  15. 686S&W

    686S&W Well-Known Member

    Gun free zones. Hmmm. More like 'Weapon's Free Zones' for the bad guys.

    If you invest in gun free zones we'll throw in volcano insurance, and bear patrols.
  16. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Wasn't activism last time, either.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page