yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
Come on JimBob...just a hint.
Omaha NE mall shooting - JUST THE FACTS PLEASE
- Thread starter cyclist
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
What happened in Omaha was murder. I would not call it a "tragedy." Tragedy is a tree falling on your house and killing grandpa while he's smoking a pipe. Tragedy is finding out you married your mother and killed your father by accident. Tragedy is Hamlet getting stuck by a poisoned blade.
This was just plain murder.
As far as the weapon, the police chief just announced it was actually a Mannlicher-Carcano with a bent scope.
dc2wheel
Member
MSNBC just reported it was a Century WASR-10 in 7.62x39. Graphic shown was of an AKM-type rifle with 30 round mag, slant brake & thumb-hole/Dragunov-style stock.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Johnny B, the suicide note he left said "Now I'll be famous."
Having his name and mugshot plastered all over the country was definitely a big reason why he killed others instead of just killing himself, according to him.
Having his name and mugshot plastered all over the country was definitely a big reason why he killed others instead of just killing himself, according to him.
T. Bracker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 155
Found this article on the shooting, always good to be reminded
By John R. Lott, Jr.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
By John R. Lott, Jr.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
bluestarlizzard
Member
my take on the whole Assult Weapon/AK-47 issue:
i believe that the media using these terms is not factual reporting or even a case of tomato/tomoto. i think they are trying to sensasionalize the report by using terms that have come to relie (yes i know i can't spell, sound it out) on. Assult Weapon is a media term, not a factual one. They could say rifle, they could say carbine, the could say firearm, but would that make it sensational enough? If the guy had used an AK-47 or varient, then yeah saying "a semi-auto AK47" is fine by me. but he didn't, he used an SKS.
this mistake is not in any way, shape or form, a responcible or even factual thing to do. it is hypeing a term to sell papers and airtime.
as such, it IS something we should complain about.
as for the fame/infamy issue:
modern media has a tendancy to plaster a name and face all over the news any time they think they have a story that will sell. and guess what, everyone (including you guys) are buying. am i saying stop listining to the news or buying the paper? no. i agree that such muderers should be villified, and i agree that knowing the diffrence between fame/infamy should be more prevalaint in our society. but ripping about "blame it all on the media" is not gonna help the issue. because all of us are apart of the media. maybe instead, you should write to your newspaper asking for more covrage of pro-gun stories (yeah, i know it probably won't do anything, but hey, at least you tried) or write in a letter about the factual diffrences between an AK-47 and an SKS, once again, no garentee weither it will work, but once again, at least you tryed. the only thing i can say really will work is to raise your kids and get your friends to raise their kids to understand right/wrong and to understand the media's not always right, and that acts of violence are not good even when your just planning to off yourself.
and encourage writers like the one above in T. Brackers post!
i believe that the media using these terms is not factual reporting or even a case of tomato/tomoto. i think they are trying to sensasionalize the report by using terms that have come to relie (yes i know i can't spell, sound it out) on. Assult Weapon is a media term, not a factual one. They could say rifle, they could say carbine, the could say firearm, but would that make it sensational enough? If the guy had used an AK-47 or varient, then yeah saying "a semi-auto AK47" is fine by me. but he didn't, he used an SKS.
this mistake is not in any way, shape or form, a responcible or even factual thing to do. it is hypeing a term to sell papers and airtime.
as such, it IS something we should complain about.
as for the fame/infamy issue:
modern media has a tendancy to plaster a name and face all over the news any time they think they have a story that will sell. and guess what, everyone (including you guys) are buying. am i saying stop listining to the news or buying the paper? no. i agree that such muderers should be villified, and i agree that knowing the diffrence between fame/infamy should be more prevalaint in our society. but ripping about "blame it all on the media" is not gonna help the issue. because all of us are apart of the media. maybe instead, you should write to your newspaper asking for more covrage of pro-gun stories (yeah, i know it probably won't do anything, but hey, at least you tried) or write in a letter about the factual diffrences between an AK-47 and an SKS, once again, no garentee weither it will work, but once again, at least you tryed. the only thing i can say really will work is to raise your kids and get your friends to raise their kids to understand right/wrong and to understand the media's not always right, and that acts of violence are not good even when your just planning to off yourself.
and encourage writers like the one above in T. Brackers post!
Last edited:
dc2wheel
Member
Bluestarlizzard wrote:
"but he didn't, he used an SKS. "
Are you sure? I know a lot of folks are reporting SKS-this-and-that, but MSNBC just claimed it was a WASR-10 & were pretty specific on manufacturer [Century] & caliber [7.62x39].
"but he didn't, he used an SKS. "
Are you sure? I know a lot of folks are reporting SKS-this-and-that, but MSNBC just claimed it was a WASR-10 & were pretty specific on manufacturer [Century] & caliber [7.62x39].
Fox News isn't doing that great a job with their proofreading.
from : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315441,00.html
"Hawkins used an AK-47 that he stole from his stepfather, Warren added."
and then
"Hawkins and her sons showed her an SKS semiautomatic Russian military rifle — the same type used in the shooting"
from : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315441,00.html
"Hawkins used an AK-47 that he stole from his stepfather, Warren added."
and then
"Hawkins and her sons showed her an SKS semiautomatic Russian military rifle — the same type used in the shooting"
bluestarlizzard
Member
well see, dc2wheel,
thats my point, he could have been using and AK, cause the media said so, the media has also claimed an SKS and now the media is claiming that its a WASR-10.
now are those the same guns or are they diffrent? do you feel they should be used interchangable? i don't. i will say that i would wait until i see an actual picture of the gun before deciding what the guy used.
thats my point, he could have been using and AK, cause the media said so, the media has also claimed an SKS and now the media is claiming that its a WASR-10.
now are those the same guns or are they diffrent? do you feel they should be used interchangable? i don't. i will say that i would wait until i see an actual picture of the gun before deciding what the guy used.
PercyShelley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,075
Clearly, they have no clearer an idea of what the firearm in question was than any of us do, jimbob's bombshell notwithstanding.
Which makes the Brady campaign's pontification on the matter all the more repulsive.
Which makes the Brady campaign's pontification on the matter all the more repulsive.
dc2wheel
Member
bluestarlizzrd wrote:
"now are those the same guns or are they different? do you feel they should be used interchangeable?"
No, I agree with you. About the only thing the AK & SKS share is caliber of ammunition. He may well have used a .22 bolt action squirrel gun - I'm just relaying what that MSNBC said & I'll add that I think it would be odd of them to be so specific about model #, manufacturer/importer & caliber if it were just a hunch. You're right though - until a photo of the actual firearm used is shown this is pretty up in the air.
"now are those the same guns or are they different? do you feel they should be used interchangeable?"
No, I agree with you. About the only thing the AK & SKS share is caliber of ammunition. He may well have used a .22 bolt action squirrel gun - I'm just relaying what that MSNBC said & I'll add that I think it would be odd of them to be so specific about model #, manufacturer/importer & caliber if it were just a hunch. You're right though - until a photo of the actual firearm used is shown this is pretty up in the air.
From one of the news accounts we find these tidbits:
Mall employee Charissa Tatoon said a man by an escalator near her was heard saying he was calling 911. See a map of where the shooting took place »
"Immediately after that, the shooter shot down from the third floor and shot him on the second floor," she said.
The guy should have taken cover first, then called for help. This notion that having a cell phone will protect you because you can immediately call 911 is going to get more people killed as time goes on.
A friend of Hawkins' said he hadn't thought Hawkins was capable of such violence.
"He was the one guy, you know, if people would be getting in a fight he'd be trying to break it up," Shawn Saunders, who had known Hawkins for about two and a half years, told CNN. "If there were arguments amongst our friends or groups, he was kind of like the calm, cool and collected one."
Many of the news accounts I've been reading state that he was having all sorts of problems in his life. Sometimes, a person who is routinely in trouble, yet comes accross as calm, cool and collected, is hiding his rage and is like a volcano, getting ready to erupt. The drugs and drinking are the smoke plume coming up from the crater. I know we can't always tell what people are going through and how they'll deal with it, but it seems there are always a bunch of little signs that get ignored or pooh poohed right before someone like this erupts.
U.S. Army recruiters turned Hawkins down last summer when he tried to enlist, a source familiar with the situation told CNN Thursday.
[/I]
I thought the liberals were claiming that the Army had to relax it's standards and was taking anyone who applied because they couldn't recruit heavily enough to fulfill Bush's Iraq war requirements.
Mall employee Charissa Tatoon said a man by an escalator near her was heard saying he was calling 911. See a map of where the shooting took place »
"Immediately after that, the shooter shot down from the third floor and shot him on the second floor," she said.
The guy should have taken cover first, then called for help. This notion that having a cell phone will protect you because you can immediately call 911 is going to get more people killed as time goes on.
A friend of Hawkins' said he hadn't thought Hawkins was capable of such violence.
"He was the one guy, you know, if people would be getting in a fight he'd be trying to break it up," Shawn Saunders, who had known Hawkins for about two and a half years, told CNN. "If there were arguments amongst our friends or groups, he was kind of like the calm, cool and collected one."
Many of the news accounts I've been reading state that he was having all sorts of problems in his life. Sometimes, a person who is routinely in trouble, yet comes accross as calm, cool and collected, is hiding his rage and is like a volcano, getting ready to erupt. The drugs and drinking are the smoke plume coming up from the crater. I know we can't always tell what people are going through and how they'll deal with it, but it seems there are always a bunch of little signs that get ignored or pooh poohed right before someone like this erupts.
U.S. Army recruiters turned Hawkins down last summer when he tried to enlist, a source familiar with the situation told CNN Thursday.
[/I]
I thought the liberals were claiming that the Army had to relax it's standards and was taking anyone who applied because they couldn't recruit heavily enough to fulfill Bush's Iraq war requirements.
bogie
Member
Guys, it's the same caliber.
You are not going to be able to educate the media on the various arcane semantics of the boomstick. Go after battles which you can (a) actually get to; and (b) win.
You are not going to be able to educate the media on the various arcane semantics of the boomstick. Go after battles which you can (a) actually get to; and (b) win.
Cosmoline
Member
I think we can rule out a true AK-47. Have you ever even seen one stateside? I haven't. A WASR Or SAR is *NOT* an AK-47. It's a semiautomatic rifle built with similar mechanical systems.
From the Fox News report:
It was the second mass shooting at a mall this year. In February, nine people were shot, five of them fatally, at Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City. The gunman, 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer.
Who was carrying a firearm in violation of the "No Guns Permitted" signs at the Utah mall. The gun free zones are not danger free, nor are they gun free. When was the last time a sign stopped anyone who didn't want to obey it. We have red lights and stop signs at many intersections. I constantly see people disobey them. We've been through this a million times. Denying law abiding people the ability to carry a firearm only makes it safe for the criminals or nutters who wish to do harm to the innocent or commit crimes, including violent crimes.
It was the second mass shooting at a mall this year. In February, nine people were shot, five of them fatally, at Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City. The gunman, 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer.
Who was carrying a firearm in violation of the "No Guns Permitted" signs at the Utah mall. The gun free zones are not danger free, nor are they gun free. When was the last time a sign stopped anyone who didn't want to obey it. We have red lights and stop signs at many intersections. I constantly see people disobey them. We've been through this a million times. Denying law abiding people the ability to carry a firearm only makes it safe for the criminals or nutters who wish to do harm to the innocent or commit crimes, including violent crimes.
bluestarlizzard
Member
>>"Immediately after that, the shooter shot down from the third floor and shot him on the second floor," she said.
The guy should have taken cover first, then called for help. This notion that having a cell phone will protect you because you can immediately call 911 is going to get more people killed as time goes on.<<
after hearing about this my dad pulled one of his "pop quizes" on me,
"what do you do if you hear gun fire?"
"get down, get cover" (phew, passed the pop quiz)
he also mentioned that people in a panic state respone to an athoritative voice and, if he had been there, he would have yelled out "get DOWN"
this may have been off subject, but could someone please teach the masses that getting cover is usually a better idea then standing in the open or running for the door.
The guy should have taken cover first, then called for help. This notion that having a cell phone will protect you because you can immediately call 911 is going to get more people killed as time goes on.<<
after hearing about this my dad pulled one of his "pop quizes" on me,
"what do you do if you hear gun fire?"
"get down, get cover" (phew, passed the pop quiz)
he also mentioned that people in a panic state respone to an athoritative voice and, if he had been there, he would have yelled out "get DOWN"
this may have been off subject, but could someone please teach the masses that getting cover is usually a better idea then standing in the open or running for the door.
bogie
Member
I'd differ on the "cover" bit...
Yeah, cover and concealment is fine if it is going to last, but if you've got a situation with a buncha folks in a fixed area, a shooter can take his time and walk to you, eliminating any advantages of cover and concealment. I'd recommend (a) put something between yourself and the shooter -while at the same time- (b) move rapidly in an erratic fashion toward an exit.
Also, distance between you and a shooter is a good thing.
Yeah, cover and concealment is fine if it is going to last, but if you've got a situation with a buncha folks in a fixed area, a shooter can take his time and walk to you, eliminating any advantages of cover and concealment. I'd recommend (a) put something between yourself and the shooter -while at the same time- (b) move rapidly in an erratic fashion toward an exit.
Also, distance between you and a shooter is a good thing.
You are correct.......
and so am I.
What would be wrong with Vilifying the Villian AND allowing responsible people to defend themselves effectively?
I have my CHL. I Train. I Carry. Concealed where legal, Open where that's the only option. I Attend Legislative Hearings, City Council Meetings to get CCW expanded. I am Just.One.Person. But I'm doing what I can do. Today I am working the intarwebz to frame the debate, trying to take the cachet out of the "Blaze of Glory" remark...........
and so am I.
What would be wrong with Vilifying the Villian AND allowing responsible people to defend themselves effectively?
I have my CHL. I Train. I Carry. Concealed where legal, Open where that's the only option. I Attend Legislative Hearings, City Council Meetings to get CCW expanded. I am Just.One.Person. But I'm doing what I can do. Today I am working the intarwebz to frame the debate, trying to take the cachet out of the "Blaze of Glory" remark...........
bluestarlizzard
Member
bogie,
i actually agree with you on that. i just see the drop and cover as the first step, i.e. its a moment to get the brain working along the lines of assessing the situation and getting away from the situation.
i actually agree with you on that. i just see the drop and cover as the first step, i.e. its a moment to get the brain working along the lines of assessing the situation and getting away from the situation.
Cmdr. Gravez0r
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 427
As far as reporting discrepancies goes, it could be that some way, some how, the kid DID have an SKS the one day and an AK the next. Just sayin.
Johnny B
Member
My point is not that we should not vilify the villain (of course we should; this was a reprehensible act by a true coward), or that he didn't do it to be recognized, but rather that if someone is going to do this for attention, vilifying them counts as paying them attention; if they're doing it for attention, they'll get it one way or another. None of this is to say that we shouldn't denounce this debased individual; we should. But as long as shooting a dozen people in a mall is noteworthy, people like this will be heavy on everybody's breath. This puts us in a pretty rough spot. We can't very well just not talk about it, but we don't want to give these monsters what they want.
So, as an extension of this point, if someone had been there, armed and ready to stop this madman from carrying through his plan, it might not be the criminal that we would be talking about, but rather the person or persons that were there, ready and able to stop him. If he had died at someone else's hand, the situation would have left his control and he would have lost.
Jimbob, I admire your stance and the things that you do for our rights, and I agree that we should not give the people that do these things a pass because they had a difficult childhood, or because they had emotional problems, or whatever. I'm with you on the fact that the person behind these acts is a damnable, sick individual. I don't know his name, I don't remember his face, and he will remain an abstraction to me. This is the treatment that these people deserve.
So, as an extension of this point, if someone had been there, armed and ready to stop this madman from carrying through his plan, it might not be the criminal that we would be talking about, but rather the person or persons that were there, ready and able to stop him. If he had died at someone else's hand, the situation would have left his control and he would have lost.
Jimbob, I admire your stance and the things that you do for our rights, and I agree that we should not give the people that do these things a pass because they had a difficult childhood, or because they had emotional problems, or whatever. I'm with you on the fact that the person behind these acts is a damnable, sick individual. I don't know his name, I don't remember his face, and he will remain an abstraction to me. This is the treatment that these people deserve.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
If someone served some of you rancid beef in a restaurant, some of you would argue about if the plate was properly cleaned. Oh well, here's one more link with a bit of background on the shooter and a bit more info on where he was in the mall and store:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_us/mall_shooting
And the TV news last night here reported him as using an AK-47, the facts will possibly come later of what he really used in this tragic atrocity.
If someone served some of you rancid beef in a restaurant, some of you would argue about if the plate was properly cleaned. Oh well, here's one more link with a bit of background on the shooter and a bit more info on where he was in the mall and store:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_us/mall_shooting
And the TV news last night here reported him as using an AK-47, the facts will possibly come later of what he really used in this tragic atrocity.
The Weasel Squeezer
member
"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."
This can not be stated enough. Nebraska has "shall issue" laws, but also gives people the right to declare their privately owned, but open-to-the-public business a "gun-free zone".
We don't need to ban AK's or the SKS... we need to ban gun free zones.
John Lott is right.
This can not be stated enough. Nebraska has "shall issue" laws, but also gives people the right to declare their privately owned, but open-to-the-public business a "gun-free zone".
We don't need to ban AK's or the SKS... we need to ban gun free zones.
John Lott is right.
After the recent mall shootings the media want to blame it all on those evil guns.
But guns did not do it. A gun is a tool just like a camera or a printing press.
My view is that most of the blame here needs to go squarely on the News Media.
After a tragedy like a mall shooting or school shooting the Media take the pictures and names of these sick murderers and broadcast them all over the world making them famous. And tell what a hard life they had and so on.
I think when something like this happens the name and picture of the people should not be shown to the public. They should not be made famous they should be defamed as the sick losers they are. That way the next sick person in crisis might get help or just quietly take there own life all alone somewhere. They should not be able to die with there last words being “ I’m going to be famous “ I’m going out in stile”.
I know there is freedom of speech in this county but making these people famous is like hollering fire in a movie theater. It is just plain wrong.
Randy Bennett
But guns did not do it. A gun is a tool just like a camera or a printing press.
My view is that most of the blame here needs to go squarely on the News Media.
After a tragedy like a mall shooting or school shooting the Media take the pictures and names of these sick murderers and broadcast them all over the world making them famous. And tell what a hard life they had and so on.
I think when something like this happens the name and picture of the people should not be shown to the public. They should not be made famous they should be defamed as the sick losers they are. That way the next sick person in crisis might get help or just quietly take there own life all alone somewhere. They should not be able to die with there last words being “ I’m going to be famous “ I’m going out in stile”.
I know there is freedom of speech in this county but making these people famous is like hollering fire in a movie theater. It is just plain wrong.
Randy Bennett
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
