Coverage of Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone
 

If I am going out somewhere with my family, and there is a "Gun-Free" sign posted, count me as a law-breaker.

I am a sheepdog, and will not be standing by while they, or other innocents are harmed.

Better that they live, and I will deal with the consequences.

TR

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

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.

westcor owns the big malls here in the Phoenix area, all are "Gun Free Zones", no CCW allowed, no knives, etc.

I do my shopping else where.

Team Sergeant

I just hope my kids and I are shopping at the same mall as you are if something like this goes down. I'm pretty sure everyone in Omaha is wishing the same thing.

I've never understood the point of gun-free zones. If someone is planning on going in to commit a crime with a gun they probably don't care if it is a gun-free zone or not. I'm seriously doubting they'll all of the sudden decide to call it all off after seeing the sign. The logic completely escapes me.

Thanks for posting that, TR.

TR I'm with you....If there had been only one sheepdog there that day, the outcome could have possibly been a little less devasting. Not familiar with the politics in Omaha but I'm pretty sure at least some would come forward in defense of that sheepdog.

Our basic problem is that we have sheep writing the laws that dictate how the sheep and sheepdogs must act! They totally ignore the fact that the wolves can't read and or don't care about what laws the sheep pass....

Jim

TS, the signs are bullshit and there policy is unenforceable because it does not meet all the requirements by law to be enforceable. So feel free to walk past that sign while carrying whatever you want. :cool:

I couldn't agree with you more. It would appear the sign on the door of the mall worked about as well as any other gun control law. And what better place for the wolves to feed than a place with ,"No sheepdogs past this point" posted at the entrance.

I'm constantly thinking and planning "what if" scenarios in my mind, and this question pops up all the time. V/R I ask you, TR, TS, and the rest of you on this board with much more experience and training then I, what would you do if you found yourself in the same situation, in a mall with a shooter, but with your family?

I know I would want to try to neutralize the threat, but what about your family? I'm not asking for any personal TTPs, but just an idea. Another wrench, what if it's just your Non-QP/LEO friends?

My personal feeling is if the shooter is not in the way, tell them to run. If the shooter IS in the way of the exit, have them hide in a dressing room or bathroom that locks.

Thoughts?

No question they are bullshit. Every American with any degree of common-sense knows it.

Why are they unenforceable? are you referring to the way the OK law is written or these provisions in general?

Regardless, I am glad to finally hear that somone is at least calling attention to this part of it...All you ever here is about the type of weapon used in these attacks... but never the VERY relevent piece of info that it was a "gun free" zone.

In most states, the signage requirements are very specific w/r/t placement and design (size, color of lettering, color of background, language, etc.). In Texas, 90% of the signs do not meet the criteria, so you may go ahead and carry unless you are asked to leave the property, in which case you must do so or risk a trespassing charge.

Joe, is that how it works in AZ?

Multiple Shooters
 

Although the single shooter scenario may be the most likely, don't forget about the possibility of a multiple shooter attack. In which case you might be telling them to run from your protection, and worst-case scenario right into a premeditated trap.


No professional here, but as a carrying citizen my initial thought is I'm not playing hero until my family/friends are safely escorted out, obviously taking down the bad guy if I have a shot. Also since I don't have a badge hunting said bad guy while LE is responding sounds like bad news. Although my action would vary on location/ anticipated LE response.

If you are actually carrying concealed, no one should notice. I have normally spotted people carrying when they are wearing fanny packs, photo journalist vests, etc. Use a good holster and belt, and make sure that you are adequately covering the piece.

Be aware that most states have, in addition to the signage provision, a list of prohibited establishments like bars, schools, courthouses, etc. You really have to careful and exercise good judgement with those.

jwt, there is no way to answer your question easily. As we say in the military, the answer always depends on terrain and situation. Actually, in this case, OAKOC.

How many shooters are there, are they moving or stationary, if, moving, where are they going, do they appear to be proficient, where are they, where is your family, where are you, where is everyone with respect to the exits, what weapons are they using, what do you have, can they see you, can you see them, do you have cover, can you use the available cover to close the distance, what is the range, can you safely engage them and score hits at that range, etc. etc.?

You learn to analyze all of this on the move, while securing your family and engaging the enemy. The longer you have been at it, the better you will generally be.

Your friends or family should be directed to get down low and seek cover. Generically, your job is to place yourself between the bad guy(s) and the people you are trying to protect, in the best position you can find, and engage them with aimed fire. Practically, you may have to accept risks in order to protect your friends or family.

Don't go out looking for trouble, but if it comes, be ready for it and respond aggressively, preferably within the limits of your lethal force statutes.

TR

No QP here, but have had an active shooter in my AO (who was put down for the dirt nap by a buddy of mine)...

In my opinion, there is no easy answer to your question, as there are waaayyyy too many factors to consider.

What is the distance between my family and the gunman? Does he have a Remington 700PSS, or a snub nosed .38 revolver? Is he moving, or is he engaging from a a position of cover? Is he coming toward me? How crowded is the mall? Does he see me? Etc....

Most importantly, how far are we from the exits?

In all honesty, you can't say "well, if X happens, do Y." It's all going to depend on the situation........ you are just going to have to roll with it.

However, as a "general rule," I would do the following.

1. If I could get my family out of there, I would. I would "body block" along the way, be prepared to engage, and get them out of the mall. I would not separate myself from my family, as you cannot assume that there is only one shooter. Long story short, if I can, I am getting my family out of Dodge. If I get a clean shot while doing that, I'm taking it.

2. If I don't think that I can get them out, then I am putting them in a position of cover and engaging the douche bag. If this happens, I have instructed the wife to IMMEDIATELY call 911 and inform them that a plain clothes cop is on the scene, is armed, and to describe what I have on. Hoefully, a rookie bursting into the mall will get that dispatch and not dump a mag of 5.56 into me.:rolleyes:

Just my .02, others will probably have better advice.

That's more or less what I was thinking as far as protecting those that I'm with. I'm certainly not trained nor full hearty enough to bust out and hunt down said shooter(s) if I'm with my family. I also have to keep in mind I'm not in the military anymore and I'm not a LEO yet, so I have to remember that I'm going to be subject to more scuttany. Luckily Florida has CCW friendly laws.

I also realize that everything in these scenarios is situational dependent. Just looking for other's line of thought. Thanks for the input.

I know this for sure, if I have to fight, I'm fighting on my feet.