Yes, Another Gun Free Zone....A lot of Good that Sign Did

[Value Pack]

At the Westroads Mall, posted signs inform people they cannot legally carry guns on the property.

The murder of eight people and the wounding of an additional five by another suicidal madman occurred in a so called "gun free zone" is just plain insanity. Airport gun-free yes, mall no way.

Anyone with common sense should recognize that these zones just make it impossible for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and others from armed crazies and are just an open invitation to any madman with guns to shoot people with no worry of anyone shooting back.

In Nebraska, just as in Kansas, citizens with state permits to carry concealed firearms can be prohibited by property owners from carrying their guns into stores, and this is just what happened earlier this week in Omaha.

You have to ask yourself what would have happened if just one person had had a weapon there. You can make book on the fact that the killer checked to make sure that this was another "gun free zone".

I don't care how crazy these people are, they, like everyone else, don't like to have anyone shooting back at them.

I don't shop at Alco and I stay away from any store that posts such a sign as I figure those signs are like honey drawing flies.

I personally like the idea of someone with a legally concealed gun that could be there to shoot back in the event that another nutcase happens along. Call me old fashioned.

I really worry about our schools (I have children) here in Dodge City and am wondering when we are going to have a shooting at one of them.

[Lou]

Agreed. Maybe I'm old-fashioned too, but I tend to shy-away from stores with the big poster of a gun with a big 'ol red slash through it, posted right on the door. My thoughts? Other than a bank, why would those stores bother? I think it would be better if a law-abiding, certified gun carrying citizen would be there to help, if needed. It's just another slap in the face to those who believe in law and order and don't kowtow to "political correctness".

[Tee]

Proprietors have a mistaken illusion that the sign/policy keeps their patrons safer by eliminating all guns from the premises.

All it does is disarm the trained/licensed would be protectors.

It has definitely "backfired" on them. Lets hope we see them held accountable for their actions.

[Highwayman]

I’m waiting for the lawsuits to start against business that ban individuals their right to self-defense and then fail to provide real protections for their clientele.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

I’m waiting for the lawsuits to start against business that ban individuals their right to self-defense and then fail to provide real protections for their clientele.

Without a doubt, Highwayman's got a dead aim on this one.

The State has said that qualified C-C folks have a right to carry and various government owned properties prohibit C-C. Where the governemt prohibits C-C, they shoulder the responsibility of protecting....

When a business prohibits C-C, the business also shoulders the responsibility. The sign on the door is much like the "Beware of doG" sign... both acknowledge the potential for a problem.

The presence of the sign WITHOUT providing a physical search of all who enter CAN be construed as a failure to provide due diligence.

[Bubba]

Isn't that supposed to be an "upscale" mall and store that this happened in? There should be quite a bit of money there for the victims families. Those signs didn't allow them to carry a gun to protect themselves and the mall obviously didn't do enough to protect the victims.

By the way, a sign on the entrance saying no guns is NOT enough protection.

[Value Pack]

Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status
Thursday , December 06, 2007 (Foxnews.com)

By John R. Lott, Jr.

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.)

[Tee]

That is an EXCELLENT article!

Thanks for posting, Value Pack!!

[Detector]

I see there was a copycat? shooting this morning at a Colorado Christian Center. A 20 years old kid still on the loose after killing 2 and wounding 2.

I think these type of shootings would be less likely if just one time we were to see on the news that a would-be killer was shot by a citizen before starting his shooting spree. Although these people are ready to die in their madness, I'm sure they prefer to choose their own way and time to go by self inflicted gunshot. The thought that some gun totting citizen may cap their a$$ first should be a deterrent.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Detector

I see there was a copycat? shooting this morning at a Colorado Christian Center. A 20 years old kid still on the loose after killing 2 and wounding 2.

I think these type of shootings would be less likely if just one time we were to see on the news that a would-be killer was shot by a citizen before starting his shooting spree. Although these people are ready to die in their madness, I'm sure they prefer to choose their own way and time to go by self inflicted gunshot. The thought that some gun totting citizen may cap their a$$ first should be a deterrent.

That's per-zactly the terrorist' mindset.