Posted on 12/08/2007 10:02:55 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
Yesterday (Friday) Charles Gibson featured as “Person of the Week” a young lady who stayed on the phone for half an hour, reporting to police what she saw in the mass shooting in an Omaha shopping mall. Did she display heroism, “grace under pressure” as Gibson said, quoting Hemingway?
Yes, she did. But the deeper question from the reporting on this latest public killing is whether Charles Gibson wants you to get shot. Here’s the evidence.
These shootings took place at Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. Six of the eight people killed by an angry teenager who’d been fired by McDonalds earlier that day (I refuse to print his name), were employees of Von Maur’s department store, as was the woman Gibson honored. Gibson reported, but did not elaborate on, the fact that police did not get inside the mall and attack the shooter. They did not reach the gunman until after the lady told them she saw him lying on the floor, next to his gun.
Fifty shots were fired. Eight people were killed, not counting the gunman. No one did anything to try to stop the gunman as he fired and reloaded four times. Contrary to early reports, he did not have an “assault rifle.” He had an ordinary hunting rifle, apparently stolen from his step-father. It had a ten-shot clip.
Compare this event, and its reporting, with another mall shooting that took place in February of this year, in Salt Lake City. A teenaged male gunman went to the Trolley Square Mall with intent to kill people and make a statement. Five people were killed, four wounded. But the great difference between the Omaha mall shootings and the ones in Salt Lake City is this: the gunman in Salt Lake was stopped by someone on the scene who was armed and able to react immediately.
Ken Hammond, an off-duty police officer from Ogden, Utah, was in that mall when the gunman opened fire. He was carrying his police weapon, concealed. When the gunman began firing at people in the mall, Hammond fired back, and stopped the gunman,
By contrast, Westroads Mall in Omaha is one of those “gun-free zones.” Signs at all its entrances make it clear that no one should enter that mall with a weapon. As a result, no one fired back at this gunman. So, he killed people until he was almost out of bullets, then he killed himself.
There have been previous shootings in which the killer was stopped by an armed civilian, such as at the Appalachian Law School. But the press coverage was less for shootings where someone on scene had a weapon and stopped the shooting, than those where the shooting continued until the killer was finished.
Charles Gibson gave more coverage, plus Person of the Week, to the Omaha shootings, where there was no defense, than to Salt Lake City shootings, where there was a defense. Does that mean that Charles Gibson wants more Americans to get shot, rather than less, because it makes a more interesting “news.”
Oh, I don’t mean that Gibson intends to get Americans killed. But the tendency of his reporting, based on his political biases, WILL result in more Americans getting killed. I’m not picking on Gibson, here. His prejudices on the use of legal and illegal weapons in society are the same as most members of the mainstream media (MSM), beginning with the New York Times, and seeping down from there.
I just know more about Charles Gibson than the other anchor men and news leaders. One of his first jobs was selling and delivering “za’s” at Princeton. To the uninitiated, that meant he was hired by the owner of the on-campus pizza franchise by my cousin, C.L. Haslam. So, I know that Gibson began his business career by selling an honest product at an honest price to people who appreciated his work.
Shouldn’t the same standards apply to the same man, late in his life? He’s now tied for the top slot as a news anchor in the United States. I have no quarrel with whatever salary he’s earning for that, certainly worth every penny. But isn’t he still obligated to provide an honest product? And doesn’t that require paying attention to the context of the current story – the other public shootings that turned out differently? And reporting on the differences that occurred?
Give it a shot, Charlie. You can do better than this.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
John / Billybob
P.S. And please keep in mind that I am now running for Congress: www.ArmorforCongress.com
Right arm!!Go Congressman Billybob!!
CC&E
Same views on the First Ammendment. And the Second!
I’ve argued that a private property owner has every legal right to establish his property as a gun free zone. I believe that will be upheld in the courts at some point.
However, by doing so, the property owner has, implicitly, insured all those who enter the property that it truly is free of guns.
If I were a family member of one of those killed, and the victim was a CCW permit holder who regularly carried, I’d sue the Mall owners for failing to provide the protection they implicitly were to provide.
I’d argue that my family member was able, willing, and certainly would hve protect his own life.
Pretty amazing and scary that not one good person was packing heat that day in the mall ...except the one who Satan directed.
Yep, and the ‘gun-free zone’ shootings coverage will continue (in lieu of gun defended shootings cut short) since that’s what the media covers in its insane agenda to create more gun-free zones! go figure.
Absolutely not.
I saw the newscast last night and I just wondered, out of all the things that happened last week, was this lady's action the most newsworthy? She did call 911 and reported what was going on, but my question is why did she have to stay on the phone for (I think it was) 30 minutes? Where were the police and why did they have to rely on her words? She crawled into a "secure room" and continued talking with police on the phone. I guess I just don't understand why it took police, who were on the scene in 6 minutes, more than 30 minutes to do something.
I don't know why I even bother watching the news. The bias is so obvious now that the news is no longer news. It's a political statement. I just wish there was some way the public could hold their feet to the fire.
Thanks J.
“Does Charles Gibson Want You Shot?”
Most likely, but the feeling is mutual.
I work on federal property and can’t bring my weapon to work so I very, very, very rarely carry it when I’m not at work cause it means having to remember to put it in my purse and then remove it before work.
However next weekend my Mom and I are running errands and I’ve set a reminder in my cell phone to remind me to pack and then unpack the pistol.
I SHOULD have done it today as I was running errands but I’m an idiot!
I HATE that although I’m licensed to conceal carry I can’t do so on federal property!
I can only speculate based on past events, but I'm guessing that they were trying to assess the situation and come up with a battle plan so that none of them got killed. I'm not dissing the cops here; I was taught in Boy Scouts to never try to save someone's life if there's a good chance your own will be taken (better one dead than two), but this does bring up a point: If the police are unable/unwilling to "run into a burning building" until the safety concerns are worked out, then what's the point? They're just an expensive clean-up crew at that point. It also renders the argument moot that personal protection (like concealed guns) are not needed; if the police can't/aren't going to save your hide in a life/death situation then your only option is personal protection and it is morally wrong to argue otherwise.
Again, I'll wait for the reports to seep out before I make a final judgment on Omaha's finest.
It’s time for an estate to file a lawsuit against these malls that declare itself a “gun free” zone, taking away ones right to self protection, yet providing no additional protection for customers.
I think citizens need guns more than cops do. Cops have more need for the chalk to outline the dead body on the ground who is likely there because he had no gun.
It doesn’t matter if the victims had a CCW or not. By banning a guns they were keeping other citizens that may have a CCW from taking action that could have saved them.
They have a right to ban guns in the mall but if they create a dangerous situation for their customers they also have an obligation of security. IMHO
A tough situation, but some progress is being made.
I was pleasantly surprised to learn that our local Police Department holds drills in the various schools, training so they already have a general plan on how to proceed and won't be waiting outside in a case like this.
I would suggest that from here on out this season any crank thinks that they are going to get 30 minutes of uninterrupted shooting time in a mall will be drilled early and often.
Enough is enough. If licensed, carry.
Really? The constitution requires a license?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.