Posted on 04/29/2018 11:21:26 AM PDT by richardb72
Another mass public shooting in another gun-free zone, and yet again the media ignores it. Right at the front of the Waffle House restaurant in Antioch, Tennessee was a sign prohibiting firearms. But none of the news media, neither national nor local, reported that fact.
Even having a president who finally emphasizes the dangers of gun-free zones for mass public shootings isn’t enough to get the press to consider this newsworthy.
Almost immediately, the media was telling Americans all sorts of other details. We knew what type of gun was used. We learned that the killer had his gun confiscated last year after he was caught trespassing in a restricted area near the White House. We found out that he had stalked Taylor Swift and that he had previously threatened people with a gun.
The easiest thing to report on is the one thing that the media consistently ignores. Obviously, with an active crime scene investigation, the media can’t go right up to the front of the restaurant. But they still could easily have seen the gun-free zone sign through their telephoto camera lenses. A throng of journalists quickly gathered across the street from the Waffle House, but none of them provided a picture of that sign.
Perhaps if the media would pay notice to some of the dozens of recent instances of concealed handgun permit holders stopping what according to police or prosecutors would have been mass public shootings, they would realize the danger of gun-free zones. In October 2015, a permit holder protected people from a robber outside of another Waffle House restaurant in Charleston County, South Carolina. not clear from this that it would have been a mass public shooting
Over 98 percent of US mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones, according ....
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If it’s a place displaying a gun-free zone sign that I don’t have to visit, I don’t. If it is a place I must visit, I ignore the sign. If I have to use my gun, I’ll most likely be alive. If I need the gun and I don’t have it, I’ll most likely be dead. I can deal with the consequences later.
Mentally ill people don’t really understand, or follow, rules.
Everyone in a “gun free zone” is at the total mercy of the one nut who ignores the rule.
Giving that kind of power to a mentally ill person, is a totally recipe for disaster.
Looking through the comments section, here are a couple of real gems:
“Armed civilians = A bunch of idiots conned into believing they too can be Dirty Harry. The truth is that they will for the most part be paralyzed by the decision making and adrenaline taking place in a fire fight. When the shooter is not hesitating they will. Or they will be mistaken for the shooter by police. Or they will commit suicide with their gun before they get a chance to play out their Dirty Harry fantasy.”
“In November, we patriotic Americans are going to stomp you gun worshiping fascists into the f*cking ground.”
Most of these whacko’s, if not all, go into “gun free zones” to do their business because it is human nature, and difficult to overcome, to want to survive and get away AFTER you have slaughtered a bunch of innocent people.
“Gun Free Zone” signs should be outlawed except in courthouses.
Gun-free zone = socialist-democrat sanctioned psychopath kill box.
When will people realize that these hardcore leftists want 80% of the American people dead? To them, there’s way too many serfs and peons around than needed to support the needs and wants of the 0.1% elite. At their level, partisan politics means nothing. It’s just a means to an end for them. Politicians are just tools to these people, to be used, and then discarded when no longer useful.
I don’t know about anyone here but gun free in any place that doesn’t check you means absolutely nothing. Unless you are going through a metal dectector carry away F’em.
Re the first quote: The author is saying that we should simply live at the mercy of killers for the illusion of safety. Complete disconnect.
For many businesses the signage is a precondition for getting liability insurance or is required by the building owner’s lease agreement, so the business owner often has no choice.
Why not a lawsuit that the business conspired to put their patrons at risk by creating an environment conducive to assault?
There are almost no “Gun Free” zones. Only places where there is intense security like the Secure areas at airports. And it’s proven that even they are not always “Gun Free”.
Anyone at that Waffle House should sue the heck out of Waffle House for naming a place “Gun Free” and failing to make it so - thus endangering their lives.
Yep. I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
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.