How many more will die in `gun-free` zones before the media start asking why?

GGReporter · 12-19-2007, 09:14 AM

Guns save lives. Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn`t the individuals who ban self-defense -- not the victimized taxpayers -- pay the price?

More...

Troy · 12-19-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGReporter

Guns save lives. Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn`t the individuals who ban self-defense -- not the victimized taxpayers -- pay the price?
More...

Q= "How many more will die in `gun-free` zones before the media start asking why?"
A= lots and dont ever expect anything out of the media, they dont care.

Q= "shouldn`t the individuals who ban self-defense -- not the victimized taxpayers -- pay the price?"
A= absolutely, here in canada if you know of a crime like for this example, spousal abuse, a person is expected by the letter of the law to inform authorities or face criminal charges pressed for holding their silence because someone suffered the concequences. this is a similar case, the individuals in charge know that a "carry' society is a safer society and they should be held responcible for not allowing us to protect ourselves. and dont ever expect such a thing to happen with this as well.

Windwalker · 12-20-2007, 05:11 AM

When enough judgments are given to victims or victim's families who sue the makers of these gun-free zones for taking away a person's right to self defense yet not protecting that person within the zone then you will see these zones abolished.

Farmer · 12-21-2007, 06:22 AM

I dont believe the media dont care, i think, they deliberately ignore these stories cause they have spent so much time building up the "Drama" that it would make them look like the losers they are if they tell it how it is.

I havent seen and journalism for a long time, only columnism......

Cyrano · 12-21-2007, 12:24 PM

Rob, you are so right.

Some lunatic goes crackerdog and decides to get revenge against them what wronged him, or that he believes done him wrong; or decides he's worthless but wants to go out with a splash of gory (pun intentional), and the news media is all over the story. One of the rules they live by is, "If it bleeds, it leads." Plus which, it gives them a chance to pound the liberal antigun drum.

But let a private citizen defend him or her self and take down one of these mad dogs, or defend themselves and their property, and you can hear the crickets. Look at the difference in coverage between the crazy teenager in the Nebraska mall versus the rejected Christian Missionary Wannabee who was taken down in a church.

The teenager killed eight in a public place with a stated gun-free policy before he killed himself. The rejected missionary wannabee killed four and would have killed more before he killed himself - but he was taken down and killed himself in a place that permits concealed carry, by a security guard who was carrying.

Remember which story got more and longer coverage? Q.E.D.

The survivors and heirs of the dead suing firearms makers, as this thread seems to imply, won't put a stop to this nihilism. What will put a stop to it is the heirs and victims suing the daylights out of the owners and management of the public places that have arbitrarily banned weapons and thereby contravened our Second Amendment rights.

But don't expect the media to ask the most important of the Six Journalistic Questions: WHY. They already have made up their minds that guns and those who carry them (except for military and police) are e-v-i-l, and don't want to be confused by the facts. And don't expect private citizens defending themselves, their homes and others to show up in major media any time soon. It doesn't bleed, you see. At least not enough and with the right kind of blood to suit them.

12-19-2007, 09:14 AM	#1
GGReporter Magazine Staff Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 717	How many more will die in `gun-free` zones before the media start asking why? Guns save lives. Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn`t the individuals who ban self-defense -- not the victimized taxpayers -- pay the price? More...

12-21-2007, 06:22 AM	#4
Farmer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Limbri NSW Au Posts: 296	I dont believe the media dont care, i think, they deliberately ignore these stories cause they have spent so much time building up the "Drama" that it would make them look like the losers they are if they tell it how it is. I havent seen and journalism for a long time, only columnism...... __________________ Cheers, Rob

12-20-2007, 05:11 AM	#3
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 3,573	When enough judgments are given to victims or victim's families who sue the makers of these gun-free zones for taking away a person's right to self defense yet not protecting that person within the zone then you will see these zones abolished.

12-21-2007, 12:24 PM	#5
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 2,356	Rob, you are so right. Some lunatic goes crackerdog and decides to get revenge against them what wronged him, or that he believes done him wrong; or decides he's worthless but wants to go out with a splash of gory (pun intentional), and the news media is all over the story. One of the rules they live by is, "If it bleeds, it leads." Plus which, it gives them a chance to pound the liberal antigun drum. But let a private citizen defend him or her self and take down one of these mad dogs, or defend themselves and their property, and you can hear the crickets. Look at the difference in coverage between the crazy teenager in the Nebraska mall versus the rejected Christian Missionary Wannabee who was taken down in a church. The teenager killed eight in a public place with a stated gun-free policy before he killed himself. The rejected missionary wannabee killed four and would have killed more before he killed himself - but he was taken down and killed himself in a place that permits concealed carry, by a security guard who was carrying. Remember which story got more and longer coverage? Q.E.D. The survivors and heirs of the dead suing firearms makers, as this thread seems to imply, won't put a stop to this nihilism. What will put a stop to it is the heirs and victims suing the daylights out of the owners and management of the public places that have arbitrarily banned weapons and thereby contravened our Second Amendment rights. But don't expect the media to ask the most important of the Six Journalistic Questions: WHY. They already have made up their minds that guns and those who carry them (except for military and police) are e-v-i-l, and don't want to be confused by the facts. And don't expect private citizens defending themselves, their homes and others to show up in major media any time soon. It doesn't bleed, you see. At least not enough and with the right kind of blood to suit them.