Recommended Posts
Supposition, embellishment and non-related stuff should not be included.
Facts and history aren't glorification. It's what people do with them that leads to glorification.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Quote
Facts and history aren't glorification. It's what people do with them that leads to glorification.
The coverage doesn't glorify, but it certainly gives attention to the person, and that part does encourage other suicidal loners to act in the same way.
bch7773 0
QuoteThe mall was a "gun free" zone:
http://www.concealedcampus.org/omaha_world-herald1.htm
and this guy ignored the "no weapons allowed here" sign!!! wow... i'm glad the mall "protected" its patrons by banning guns.

a single shot from a concealed weapons holder could have stopped this rampage. too bad they followed the law and didn't bring weapons into the mall.
MB 3528, RB 1182
So, where do you draw the line?
Should there be a Free Press or should it be controled?
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
billvon 3,070
That's true - but it's one of the prices we pay for having a free press. I really think you'd prefer it that way overall. I mean, covering 9/11 was a huge impetus for other terrorists to do such things - but I think all in all you'd rather the media cover it than try to suppress it.
Besides which, in this day and age, someone would ask the police, email it to someone, it would get forwarded, posted on a blog etc. You can't keep such things out of the public eye any more.
Quote
a single shot from a concealed weapons holder could have stopped this rampage. too bad they followed the law and didn't bring weapons into the mall.
Absolutely. I believe another mall shooting earlier this year was stopped by exactly that (an off-duty police officer who carried his weapon into the mall, despite the fact that it was posted as being "gun-free").
When will people realize that bullets are far more effective at stopping violent criminals than "No-Gun" signs?
QuoteQuote
a single shot from a concealed weapons holder could have stopped this rampage. too bad they followed the law and didn't bring weapons into the mall.
Absolutely. I believe another mall shooting earlier this year was stopped by exactly that (an off-duty police officer who carried his weapon into the mall, despite the fact that it was posted as being "gun-free").
When will people realize that bullets are far more effective at stopping violent criminals than "No-Gun" signs?
and what would be even more effective would be for people to not be able to get hold of guns in the first place......
Royd 0
How did that happen? We have a portion of society who says that there are no absolutes in life, there is no black or white, no right or wrong. Giving children solid boundaries is considered abuse. Civil disobedience is promoted by those in authority within the educational system. What do you really expect?QuoteThere is no respect for law and order,
Royd 0
You mean, sorta like a suicide bomber?Quoteand what would be even more effective would be for people to not be able to get hold of guns in the first place......
QuoteYou mean, sorta like a suicide bomber?Quoteand what would be even more effective would be for people to not be able to get hold of guns in the first place......
you know what i mean
A Concealed Carry wouldn't solve that problem, now would it?
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
QuoteQuoteQuote
a single shot from a concealed weapons holder could have stopped this rampage. too bad they followed the law and didn't bring weapons into the mall.
Absolutely. I believe another mall shooting earlier this year was stopped by exactly that (an off-duty police officer who carried his weapon into the mall, despite the fact that it was posted as being "gun-free").
When will people realize that bullets are far more effective at stopping violent criminals than "No-Gun" signs?
and what would be even more effective would be for people to not be able to get hold of guns in the first place......
How do you make 100 million guns disappear? Do you think that just because a law is passed banning them that they'll just go away and criminals won't be able to get them?
There is no way to prevent criminals from getting guns. Concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is an effective method for stopping them when they try to use them however.
ZeG 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
a single shot from a concealed weapons holder could have stopped this rampage. too bad they followed the law and didn't bring weapons into the mall.
Absolutely. I believe another mall shooting earlier this year was stopped by exactly that (an off-duty police officer who carried his weapon into the mall, despite the fact that it was posted as being "gun-free").
When will people realize that bullets are far more effective at stopping violent criminals than "No-Gun" signs?
and what would be even more effective would be for people to not be able to get hold of guns in the first place......
How do you make 100 million guns disappear? Do you think that just because a law is passed banning them that they'll just go away and criminals won't be able to get them?
There is no way to prevent criminals from getting guns. Concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is an effective method for stopping them when they try to use them however.
If you want to do crazy stuff, there is ALWAYS a way to get a gun. Just look at some european countries that have them more or less banned/controlled. There may be less shootings (less crazy people), but they still occur.
It´s the same with prostitution, you can´t fight the sympton, there will always be hookers/weapons. You have to educate people to stay away from it, that´s the only way!
Royd 0
No, but the person desiring to do the damage doesn't need a gun, either.QuoteA Concealed Carry wouldn't solve that problem, now would it?
In this case, it was all about 'me'. If I wanted to do serious damage, a bomb would be the ticket.
QuoteWho wields the sensorship pencil?
So, where do you draw the line?
Should there be a Free Press or should it be controled?
Who said anything about controlling the press?
For some time now they have kept the names of rape victims anonymous. No one forces them to do so, they choose to.
Likewise, here, they can choose to, though I think practically speaking it's unlikely to happen as they seek to explain the actions (he was bullied, he wet his bed, 'he seemed like such a nice boy' says his neighbor, etc).
The press also tends to choose not to mention when guns are used to end the attack, which is unfortunate. Not only do they (to other fucked up losers) seem to glorify the shooter, but they don't mention that often they are stopped by the same tool, which might discourage some of them.
every time it happens, the media should put up a picture of Rosie O'Donnell and say she struck again.
Of course, the problem is that people want to know WHY people do senseless things in hope to understand or prevent. But that would be an attempt to rationalize irrational behavior, so it doesn't benefit us.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites