12/06/2007

A fast look at the media coverage on the Omaha Westroad Mall Shooting

There were 2,674 news stories according to Google News search by about 4 AM EST today. Of course, these are news stories worldwide.


But I can find any of these stories that mention that the attack occurred in a gun free zone. Why?



Labels: ,

posted by John Lott at 4:34 AM

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fox news story says the Shooting in February was stopped by police. Wasn't it stopped by an off-duty police officer who wasn't supposed to be carrying under the gun-free-zone policy?

12/06/2007 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds like you just found a gap in the market there.

All that's needed is a bunch of nifty stickers and a mall operator who would like some free air time.

The MSM may not like to report legitimate CCW use or the relationship between their sacred "disarmed victim zones" and mass public murdering sprees.

How about a mall operator making safety one of the marketing points of their mall:

"We have the latest fire detection and fire fighting equipment, all of our staff are trained in first aid and using defibrilators, and we not only allow concealed carry , we positively encourage it.... show a CCW permit and get a free coffee & muffin at any of our coffee shops..."

The MSM could ignore it if they like, but I bet it would work. and if the MSM try to decry it, then they'd better come up with the figures

12/06/2007 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your logic is flawed, and it brings into question your ability to properly use research methods. The absence of a person with a gun to stop the Westroads shooter cannot logically be used as evidence that guns can help stop such violent attacks. Unless you can prove that a person was kept from bringing in a gun to Westroads, your hypothesis is mere speculation. Again, the absence of a fact (a person with a gun could have stopped the shooter)cannot be used to make a leap in logic that had something taken place, i.e., a person with a gun could have stopped the shooter, the shooting would not have taken place. In simpler terms, the fact that guns are banned from Westroads is no evidence whatsoever that if guns were allowed in Westroads, the shooting would have been any less likely whatsoever. Your logic is flawed, presumably because to support your thesis, you need to make such unsupported leaps in logic that are pure nonsense. More guns are bad. Less guns are good. In this case, security should have had guns, and they should have had the courage to stop someone who they saw with a huge bulge in his jacket, which they admit to have seen prior to the shooting. And I also see no reason why it took dispatchers two minutes to call out an officer after getting the 9-11 call for the shooting. That seems like a very very slow dispatch time.

12/06/2007 2:45 PM  
Blogger Nebraska BlogGrass said...

"There were 2,674 news stories according to Google News search by about 4 AM EST today. Of course, these are news stories worldwide."

There were 2,674 copies of about 3 separately reported stories.

12/06/2007 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there is no evidence that a CCW holder could have prevented such an act because EVERY mass shooting happens in a place that a lawful citizen cannot legally carry their gun...

and if you think that a mall guard that makes $8 a hour is going to charge head long into a shooting, you are really smoking some good stuff...

the only chance to stop a situation like that comes from one of the victims taking a stand. and if those victims are unarmed against a person with a rifle, they cannot make much of a stand.

12/06/2007 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"More guns are bad. Less guns are good"
Speaking of logic, this is known as a non sequitur...but I'm sure you already knew that. This means you will also acknowledge that building an argument from this fallacious axiom (statement of truth) will inevitably result in a worthless mess.

Nobody is suggesting that guns are magical amulets of protection. The absence of them guarantees the absence of certain life saving options. The presence of them, and thereby the presence of such options, may have saved lives. Maybe just one life...maybe many more. Aren't the anti-gun zealots the first to trot out the "if it saves just one life" line?

Kinda reveals the fraud, doesn't it?

"security should have had guns, and they should have had the courage"
Yes...they should have. Shame they didn't. Shame it took a bunch of dead people to figure that out. How many lives do you think you can save with a "should have"?

-dk

12/07/2007 5:16 PM  
Blogger Nebraska BlogGrass said...

There are over 200 shops in that mall. How many armed security guards are you planning to have?

There are over 2000 shoppers on a good day. What percentage need to be carrying guns and proficient before we are safe?

Do the math, gunhead! A crazy guy comes in there and fires 30 shots before you get your Glock out of your boot holster.

12/07/2007 10:44 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

nebraska bloggrass

I am not arguing for a lot of security guards. You can do the math, but when you have a public place only a very small percentage of people have to have permit to have the place covered. Let me help you out though, if 3 percent of people have permitted concealed handguns, on average one out of every 33 people will be able to be their to protect themselves and others.

12/10/2007 4:25 AM  
Blogger Nebraska BlogGrass said...

Lott writes"Let me help you out though, if 3 percent of people have permitted concealed handguns, on average one out of every 33 people will be able to be their to protect themselves and others."

Hmm. This from a research-level economist?

12/10/2007 5:00 PM  
Blogger Boyd K said...

Yeah, I'm with ya BlogGrass, you really rarely see good quality sarcasm like that in a research economist. (Good on ya John) boydk425

12/14/2007 1:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home