This is getting ridiculous!

[TTS]

Panicked customers rushed to the exits when a gunman opened fire Tuesday at a mall outside Portland, Oregon. Some people huddled behind store counters and hid behind racks of clothing. The mall's Santa dropped to the ground.
Three people were killed, including the shooter, said Lt. James Rhodes of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office. One person suffered a traumatic injury, he said. The shooter died of a self-inflicted gunshot, Rhodes said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1

[photogpat]

The antis are predictably dancing in the blood. By glamorizing these incidents in the media, we only give rise to the copycats.

[TTS]

The antis are predictably dancing in the blood. By glamorizing these incidents in the media, we only give rise to the copycats.

I think they would be doing the same thing if there were people going around with Swords killing people. I like to demonize the MSM as much as anyone, but we have to expect they will cover these shootings.

[antimatter]

If it bleeds, it leads. Remember, the media is selling your eyeballs to the advertisers. The more eyeballs that tune in, the more money they can charge for a 30 second spot. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and shootings are all the stuff that the 24 hour news cycle will feed on. It's not being liberal, it's a business model.

[GunClasses.Net]

If it bleeds, it leads. Remember, the media is selling your eyeballs to the advertisers. The more eyeballs that tune in, the more money they can charge for a 30 second spot. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and shootings are all the stuff that the 24 hour news cycle will feed on. It's not being liberal, it's a business model.

Lust for ratings. It seems that if people will talk about it with their friends, family, coworkers, internet boards, etc, they'll lead with it, unless it perhaps runs against their sponsors or politics.

[brent fox]

Another place that was posted to make everyone safer!

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.p ... egon/page2
Originally Posted by brent fox
Question for the "Locals" in Oregon; are malls and other certain places (churches) specifically restricted for carry, or is it like MN where a business can place a sign at their own discretion?
From Sue Paulson on WT
It is up to the individual business to decide their policies. Clackamas Town Center is a "no guns allowed" posted place.

[rugersol]

If it bleeds, it leads. Remember, the media is selling your eyeballs to the advertisers. The more eyeballs that tune in, the more money they can charge for a 30 second spot. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and shootings are all the stuff that the 24 hour news cycle will feed on. It's not being liberal, it's a business model.

I have no problem with that!

But it ain't "news" ... it's entertainment!

"Professional" wrestling ain't wrestling, it's entertainment!

Only difference is, lotsa folks still think the "news" is news!

[tizzo]

If it bleeds, it leads. Remember, the media is selling your eyeballs to the advertisers. The more eyeballs that tune in, the more money they can charge for a 30 second spot. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and shootings are all the stuff that the 24 hour news cycle will feed on. It's not being liberal, it's a business model.

I have no problem with that!

But it ain't "news" ... it's entertainment!

"Professional" wrestling ain't wrestling, it's entertainment!

Only difference is, lotsa folks still think the "news" is news!

Still news:

news [nooz, nyooz] Show IPA
noun, ( usually used with a singular verb )

1.a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.
3.such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight.
4. a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material. Compare copy ( def 5 ) .

[mnmike59]

A CNN reporter did an unbiased report of gun ownership.

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/22/what-i-learned-about-firearms.cnn.html

and part two

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/22/what-i-learned-about-firearms-part-2.cnn.html

[Dakotared]

I am shocked how willing she was to be open minded on guns. And being on CNN I am even more shocked that it aired.

[Kilroy was here]

A CNN reporter did an unbiased report of gun ownership.

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/22/what-i-learned-about-firearms.cnn.html

and part two

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/22/what-i-learned-about-firearms-part-2.cnn.html

Wow, that "security expert" really did a fantastic job, on showing the pro gun side of the story. "I never seen a gun jump up off the table and shoot some one" and "the only people who abide by the (gun) laws, are law abiding citizens" I think anyone who watched that video and was on the fence, now has at least a slight pro gun opinion. I commend that man on giving level headed, non-Nugent sort of opinions. Also the reporter, too, saying the sporting rifles and their military counterparts are not that different was nice. And, to boot, I haven't heard the word assault once in any article.

P.S.Love the Nuge, but he can come off a little LOUD AND PUSHY when it comes to politics.

[Snowgun]

Back to the OP:

I believe the moral of the story here is, similar to Colorado and other recent news stories, that human beings can be dangerous, at any time, anywhere. They can be of any race, they don't always telegraph "signs" noticeably before hand, they can have educations ranging from sub highschool to PhD candidates, they can be raised badly or well.

They can happen to be gun owners. If they are not, they can acquire guns despite any "Laws", especially if they put their mind to it. Obviously criminals do this on a regular basis. A gun doesn't even need to be a requirement to do mayhem, as a mind toward destruction can find a way to make practically anything lethal. Those advocating for absolute no guns anywhere as a solution I fear will soon find a more horrible alternative: the suicide bomber. I know that sounds a little hyperbolic, but in some twisted benefit, I believe that guns being the primary method of insane outbursts here in the US actually save lives.

So what can we as a society do? The multifactorial characteristic of the active shooter or opportunistic gunman leads to two solutions: total societal lock-down, or the advocation of self defense incorporated with the return of community safety stewardship. The lone sheepdog vigilante is not enough (despite how many fantasize about it). Just as there are community organizers for other causes, community defense and it's methodologies should be nurtured despite the participants' politics or ideologies.

When the majority of people can be aware of their surroundings, and can correctly identify and respond to a communal threat, more and more of these incidents will be averted.

When this happens, the tone in the media and popular attitude about such things will change from !shock! horror! to detached contempt and dismissal of these losers, which will stem the flow of this activity as an outlet for attention.

[TTS]

Back to the OP:

I believe the moral of the story here is, similar to Colorado and other recent news stories, that human beings can be dangerous, at any time, anywhere. They can be of any race, they don't always telegraph "signs" noticeably before hand, they can have educations ranging from sub highschool to PhD candidates, they can be raised badly or well.

They can happen to be gun owners. If they are not, they can acquire guns despite any "Laws", especially if they put their mind to it. Obviously criminals do this on a regular basis. A gun doesn't even need to be a requirement to do mayhem, as a mind toward destruction can find a way to make practically anything lethal. Those advocating for absolute no guns anywhere as a solution I fear will soon find a more horrible alternative: the suicide bomber. I know that sounds a little hyperbolic, but in some twisted benefit, I believe that guns being the primary method of insane outbursts here in the US actually save lives.

So what can we as a society do? The multifactorial characteristic of the active shooter or opportunistic gunman leads to two solutions: total societal lock-down, or the advocation of self defense incorporated with the return of community safety stewardship. The lone sheepdog vigilante is not enough (despite how many fantasize about it). Just as there are community organizers for other causes, community defense and it's methodologies should be nurtured despite the participants' politics or ideologies.

When the majority of people can be aware of their surroundings, and can correctly identify and respond to a communal threat, more and more of these incidents will be averted.

When this happens, the tone in the media and popular attitude about such things will change from !shock! horror! to detached contempt and dismissal of these losers, which will stem the flow of this activity as an outlet for attention.

I think we are on the same page. The reason we are seeing more of these incidences is because of a societal breakdown. We no longer have a community, moral relativism runs rampant and our society is starting to produce more takers than makers.

I truly believe we are "watching Rome burn."

[GunClasses.Net]

Back to the OP:

I believe the moral of the story here is, similar to Colorado and other recent news stories, that human beings can be dangerous, at any time, anywhere. They can be of any race, they don't always telegraph "signs" noticeably before hand, they can have educations ranging from sub highschool to PhD candidates, they can be raised badly or well.

They can happen to be gun owners. If they are not, they can acquire guns despite any "Laws", especially if they put their mind to it. Obviously criminals do this on a regular basis. A gun doesn't even need to be a requirement to do mayhem, as a mind toward destruction can find a way to make practically anything lethal. Those advocating for absolute no guns anywhere as a solution I fear will soon find a more horrible alternative: the suicide bomber. I know that sounds a little hyperbolic, but in some twisted benefit, I believe that guns being the primary method of insane outbursts here in the US actually save lives.

So what can we as a society do? The multifactorial characteristic of the active shooter or opportunistic gunman leads to two solutions: total societal lock-down, or the advocation of self defense incorporated with the return of community safety stewardship. The lone sheepdog vigilante is not enough (despite how many fantasize about it). Just as there are community organizers for other causes, community defense and it's methodologies should be nurtured despite the participants' politics or ideologies.

When the majority of people can be aware of their surroundings, and can correctly identify and respond to a communal threat, more and more of these incidents will be averted.

When this happens, the tone in the media and popular attitude about such things will change from !shock! horror! to detached contempt and dismissal of these losers, which will stem the flow of this activity as an outlet for attention.

I think we are on the same page. The reason we are seeing more of these incidences is because of a societal breakdown. We no longer have a community, moral relativism runs rampant and our society is starting to produce more takers than makers.

I truly believe we are "watching Rome burn."

I heard a controversial talk- show guy say that the leadership of this country is "watching Rome burn" as elitists take advantage of each concurrent crisis. He may have a point, there.

[2in2out]

Why more people didn't die in Clackamas mall shooting
Improved police practices and greater public awareness about what to do in an 'active shooter scenario' may have limited casualties during the Clackamas mall shooting Tuesday in Portland, Ore.
By Patrik Jonsson | Christian Science Monitor


http://news.yahoo.com/why-more-people-didnt-die-clackamas-mall-shooting-225031988.html


Many news stories are also saying that the number of mass shootings isn't changing very much. I suspect our attitudes are changing more than the stats are changing. In other words, all of us - pro and anti - are becoming sensitized to the news stories and pay more attention.

On the other hand, the above article concludes that people are more prepared. As carry permits continue to rise across the country, and people take more responsible for their own personal defense (as well as defense of those around them), I'm not surprised.

So, rather than agree that Rome is burning, I believe it's the exact opposite - our society is becoming better prepared and is more willing to take a stand against the nut jobs and homocidal maniacs. I think what's changing isn't the number of shootings, it's the number of people who are willing to do something about it (by being prepared).