Gun Free Zone Claims Eight
By Mitch Berg
The Westroads Mall in Omaha – site of Wednesday’s horrible spree-shooting – is a “gun free” zone:
Turns out that the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, where Robert Hawkins killed 8 with an SKS medium-powered rifle is, guess what, a Gun Free Zone.
For an overview of all the media discussing this fact, see GunPundit, Murdoc’s fledgling gun-oriented site.
From FoxNews:
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?
Show me a spree-killing, and as a rule I’ll show you a “gun free zone”. The exceptions largely prove the rule, in fact.
The usual suspects are lining up to claim the usual BS (via Say Uncle), or in the case of this ignorant Australian knuckle-dragger, commit libel:
NEBRASKA, the farming state with the highest per capita gun ownership in the US, began the year with LB-454, a new state law allowing people 21 years and over to carry a concealed handgun pretty much wherever they go.
Applicants must pass a routine police check, complete a basic handgun training course (most are run by ex-cops) and pay $US100 ($115) for a five-year permit. It’s as simple as that.
Simpler still – the shooter used a rifle. Not a concealed handgun.
It is, in fact, as simple as that.
There might be some meaning to this tragic waste of life if all over the Cornhusk state [ ? ? ?- Ed] – the only US jurisdiction that still executes prisoners by frying them in the electric chair – the gun-culture penny was to finally drop.
Sadly, that is unlikely to be the case. Out in the American Midwest tragedies such as Westroads and the Virginia Tech massacre in April, when 32 people were killed [ Virginia’s in the Midwest? Who knew? – Ed.], often serve to reinforce the convictions of gun nuts who believe that being armed is not just a constitutional right but goddamn common sense, too.
I’m sure a few people at “gun-free” Westroads Mall thought it might have made sense yesterday.
Take Chuck Zellers, a resident of the state capital, Lincoln, who wrote to his local newspaper, the Lincoln Journal Star, after the Virginia Tech slaughter to complain about an article in an Australian publication that had argued for stricter US gun control.
“Google Australian gun laws,” Mr Zellers urged his readers. “You will see several entries that, upon reading, dispel the notion that such stricter laws have reduced crime in that country. In fact, crime has risen in Australia since passing stricter laws.
As a Lincoln resident, Mr Zellers no doubt feels his freedoms have been violated by a local ordinance that denies convicted stalkers or anyone named in a protection order over the previous 10 years the right to a concealed weapon.
Is the columnist calilng Mr. Zellars a convicted stalker?
Seems a bit…yellow?
After all, just down the road in Omaha no such restrictions exist.
And it is about as relevant as Mr. Nelson’s preeningly, gratingly ignorant column.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Gee Clownie, a 12 gauge shotgun can “assault” too. Let’s get that Democrat Congress busy banning them too. They’ve been so gosh darn effective with the rest of their agenda.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Maybe this one will get through, Kerm. After all, normal citizens don’t see any particularly good reason for people to have assault weapons around. You know, unless they’re stalkers or homicidal psychos. But I guess when you gun nuts see a shooting like the one in Omaha you think “There but for the grace of God…” and you’re just happy it wasn’t you who suddenly felt compelled to go hunting humans. This time, anyway.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I don’t think I can believe angryclown anymore.
Especially when he says things like “angryclown is so very smart…”.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Clownie has his rubber chicken all engorged over the word “assault”. Stalkers and homicidal psychos can use shotguns or 30-30s too. But that’s just not as sexy as “AK-47” which was the original point, lost in the frothing of an obvious superiority complex.
One might wonder how tall Clownie is.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“After all, normal citizens don’t see any particularly good reason for people to have assault weapons around. You know, unless they’re stalkers or homicidal psychos.”
What do you suppose the ratio is between assault weapon and homocidal psychos? How do you suppose that compares with say cars and drunks?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:43 am
But you will simply have to wait for Angryclown to dispense his wisdom as he deems appropriate.
AC Dispenses wisdom?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Let me get this straight. ac is obsessed with the (obviously unimportant) issue of whether or not the gun used was an AK or SKS, while objecting to those who point out that it doesn’t much matter, while ignoring the key issue: the mall was a victim disarmament zone.
He has a lot of company in that. See Lott’s piece at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html .
That said, if ac wants to claim that the particular gun would have been unavailable if the AWB had been renewed, I’d be interested to see his proof. I’ll not be waiting to take my vitamin C until that comes, though; scurvy doesn’t become me.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Gee you guys are dumb. Angryclown doesn’t think the type of gun matters much either. Angryclown was simply interested in slam-dunking Kermie’s paranoid claim that the press was conspiring to falsely call the gun an AK-47.
Gun control doesn’t happen to be an issue that Angryclown gets all bent out of shape over, the way it does you kooks. That said, he recognizes that guys who collect lots of guns are kind of creepy.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Kermit essayed: “One might wonder how tall Clownie is.”
Think Lincoln, de Gaulle, Berg.
Feel free to ask for Angryclown’s help next time you need something on a high shelf, Kerm.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:00 am
ac — if you don’t mind violating your usual practice and being truthful for a moment, how many people do you actually know who collect “lots of guns”?
December 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Just as a data point: AKs weren’t illegal under the AWB. Importation of new AK clones (the real AK is a select-fire rifle; the clones that are fairly common are semiautomatic, and can’t fire full auto) was prohibited, but ones that had already been imported were available. Ditto for standard capacity magazines; if you wanted to, it was easy to find and buy standard capacity Glock mags, although the limit on the sale of post-ban-manufactured mags to non-cops kept the prices high.
The main effect of the AWB was development of smaller handguns designed around ten-round or smaller mags — the sort of guns that the Brady Bunch call “pocket rockets,” for reasons that I’m sure a Freudian would have fun with. Before the AWB, there were few pocket-sized .45s and such; the AWB spurred development and manufacture of guns like the Glock 30 and the little Kahr pistols. Beyond that, the effects were trivial — imported SKSs couldn’t have flash suppressors or bayonet lugs, and it was at best legally questionable to replace the SKS internal 10-round magazine with a 20-round mag. (My own SKS has the 20 round mag, but it was built pre-ban.)
The SKS, by the way, is a pretty good deer rifle; my hunting partner’s kids used one for their first times, not because of the capacity, but because the combination of the gun’s weight and the action makes the recoil very manageable. It’s a particularly good choice for those hunting from tree stands, as the real problem with it for moving around is the weight — it’s a pretty heavy sucker — but that doesn’t much matter if you’re going to be sitting in a stand. (My younger daughter will be using either an SKS or a .243 for her first time, just because she’s pretty recoil-averse.)
December 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am
joelr queried: “ac — if you don’t mind violating your usual practice and being truthful for a moment, how many people do you actually know who collect “lots of guns”?”
Zero, joelr. Hunters? Zero. Angryclown lives in New York City, which has strict gun control and very few deer. Angryclown recognizes there are places in this country where there’s nothing better to do than go out in the cold and kill defenseless animals. God bless. Angryclown would rather go to a baseball game.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Gee Clownie, for someone so tall you sure don’t mind stooping low.
If you don’t see how flushed and breathless the MSM get over “AK47”, fine. You probably don’t notice the plague of killer SUVs either.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Ah. So you don’t know any hunters, don’t know anybody who has “lots of guns”, but have strong, ignorant, and repeatedly expressed opinions about such things.
Got it.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I don’t know any child molesters either, joelr. But I know what I think of ’em.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
So you think that owning multiple firearms is equivalent to molesting children. How revealing that is about the depths — such as they are — of your mind, ac. I think you’ve made a good decision to post under a pseudonym; you wouldn’t want your neighbors to know about your perversions.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Finally found some pics of the weapon
http://kptm.images.worldnow.com/images/7457887_BG2.JPG
December 9th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Good point, joelr. Owning multiple firearms is more like collecting kiddie porn. It’s not quite as bad as actually acting out the sick fantasies, but pretty good evidence the sick fantasies exist.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:59 am
So, as it turns out, ac’s reflexive belief in the authorities turns out to be misplaced, and the weapon is a modified SKS.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:06 am
In this pic, an AK-47 is on top and an SKS is on the bottom
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/9/9c/350px-AK-47_and_SKS_DD-ST-85-01268.jpg
December 9th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I need to retract that first picture. That picture was posted here
http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457887
but there is no clear indication that the photo is a picture of the actual weapon used. It probably is a stock photo.
Given the police chief’s most recent statement (12/7), I’m leaning towards AK-47 until I see contradictory evidence.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:50 am
So in Clownie’s world a person owning a 30-30 and a 12 gauge shotgun have “sick fantasies”.
Introspection is a good thing, Clownie. You should give it s shot (as it were).
December 9th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Ghu knows what would be stirred out of the icky recesses of ac’s mind if he met a friend of mine who has a pretty darned near complete collection of British Enfields, as well as some other stuff.
More and more I’m with Freud on folks like ac; their morbid fears of weaponry are a pretty good demonstrations of their sexual and emotional dysfunction.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Dunno if Freud is where you want to go in defense of dudes with an insatiable desire to own firearms, big fella.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Oh, I think so, Seltzer-Pants; it was, after all, Freud who pointed out that your fear of weaponry is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Zat so? Or is that yet another bit of misinformation supporting the house of cards that is the wingnut worldview (see also Saddam Hussein’s responsibility for 9/11)?
Just cause you see it in some gun nut’s sig line don’t make it true.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Just cause you see it in some gun nut’s sig line don’t make it true.
Well, there IS research that shows gunnies are happier, better-educated, more advanced in their careers, and less prone to bigotry or supportive of police brutality than non-gunnies.
But sure, insufferable self-righteousness is fine, too. Just fine!
December 10th, 2007 at 8:12 am
pretty darned near complete collection of British Enfields
Er…Mk I, Mk IV, Mk V…?
What am I missing?
Are you including Australian full-auto mods, or…?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Is there research to show that joelr correctly quotes Freud? You know, like a book that says “by Freud” on the front and has those words all in a row somewhere on the inside?
A little Internet research will show you that’s a phony quote.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“Going to Freud” is pretty useless. He believed a lot of things, and some of them pretty “off the wall”. Even if he did say “angryclown is sexually and emotionally immature”, it doesn’t make it so. I can believe that without his say so. 😉
A question does pop into my head every time I read angryclown going off on the topic of “gun nuts”: who (in angryclown’s world) should have the power a gun provides?
December 10th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
who (in angryclown’s world) should have the power a gun provides?
I’m guessing “the ringmaster”.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Military, police, people who hunt or need to defend themselves. Not psychos and hobbyists.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Hmm…”people who…need to defend themselves”.
That sounds like it could potentially be a very large group of people.
I wonder how they will know before they “need to defend themselves”.
Do all attackers give a responsible notification and lead time so that people who “need to defend themselves” can get all that paperwork done in time for the attack? Maybe only on New York City.