Sad Omaha Mall shooting

[C5 Golfer]

Disclaimer- This post is not meant to offend, insult or otherwise harm any individual or his/her beliefs or intelligence. This post is thought I had last night.

I have a theory on this Shooting and stopping them in the future.. or at least reducing the occurrence this sad very sad event that effects us all.

If you look at previous shootings – this Omaha Mall or Virginia tech and many others, the shooter wanted recognition, to be famous, to be in the news, to be heard, etc.

What if we made a law that the news agencies could report all they want just like they do now, sensationalize it as much as they do now but with a small change, this change would be they cannot show a photo or name the shooter or include this guy in any list of casualties. For all intents and purpose he is a non-person, per the news he does not exist. We - as the American public would have the news sad as it usually is but the bad guy gets no fame from it. Yes, free press/speech is a wonderful right and privilege but we may be at a point in our life that we need to give up a few rights to be a little safer than we are now.

Think About it!

And please do not mention gun control would stop innocent shooting issues, - start your own thread if you wish to talk gun control. A gun control topic is not my intention. Thanks for reading

[bobdea]

yup, free speech is just the liberty we need to give up.

while you're at it how about the right to a fair trial.

[C5 Golfer]

yup, free speech is just the liberty we need to give up.

while you're at it how about the right to a fair trial.

Bob, I recognize the implications of once you open the door of individual rights where do you stop, But honestly I do not understand the correlation of a fair trial right and not publishing a crazy man’s name and sensationalizing it so he is famous. Have not come partially there by not allowing a criminal to profit by his actions, i.e. writing a book about his crime and banking the $$$$.

[Gleb]

Well they don't show streakers at sporting events on TV anymore but thats a different story.

Criminals are now not allowed to profit for their crimes any more because of some law that was passed recently.

The guy in American Gangster, Frank Lucas, was trialed and convicted before that law was in effect so as of now, he has taken over $1,000,000 to the bank.

[bobdea]

as it is free speech has been crippled in recent years and killing free speech even if YOU think it's a good idea is the first step to destroying the rest of our civil rights.

by banning free speech you ban dissent and it gives the government more power to ban dissent than it should ever have in a free country.

banning any form of free speech is the first step to destroying all our other rights including that to a fair trial. the specific reason I mentioned that is how do you prosecute someone for that in a fair manner without walking all over the bill of rights and breaking the very law you're prosecuting in the first place?

Don't count on politicians to write the law in a manner that it can't be abused or law enforcement and courts to handle cases correctly.

Do you support the patriot act in full?

Should we not be able to talk about 9/11 other than it happened?

Have you been using PCP, LSD or glue today?

[bobdea]

there are always going to be crazy people in the world that want to kill others.

even if the media didn't report in the way it does these people would still feel they were great martyrs or something.

probably a more rational solution would be to look at why these things happen, then figure out who is most likely to do these things and get them in treatment or committed to a nice place with padded walls.

[C5 Golfer]

as it is free speech has been crippled in recent years and killing free speech even if YOU think it's a good idea is the first step to destroying the rest of our civil rights.

by banning free speech you ban dissent and it gives the government more power to ban dissent than it should ever have in a free country.

banning any form of free speech is the first step to destroying all our other rights including that to a fair trial. the specific reason I mentioned that is how do you prosecute someone for that in a fair manner without walking all over the bill of rights and breaking the very law you're prosecuting in the first place?

Don't count on politicians to write the law in a manner that it can't be abused or law enforcement and courts to handle cases correctly.

Do you support the patriot act in full?

Should we not be able to talk about 9/11 other than it happened?

Have you been using PCP, LSD or glue today?

I think we are talking apples and oranges – and you might disagree with that which is ok. A discussion on any topic can easily diverge or have different meaning and direction depending on the “intent” of the listener and the speeker.

Like Gleb mentioned – streakers are not shown but add to that list; one cannot advertise smoking or liquor on television anymore. We do not hear “F*ck” on TV is that not violating free speech? We go to sporting event or a large meeting like a State Fair or an airport and we are searched and bags prodded and purses are inspected, is the pendulum not moving away from your ideal world ???? You mention a fair trial – how about fair justice for the victims – like the guy who raped a stroke paralyzed lady and only got 8 ½ years or John Spencer who just received a penalty of just 14 years for slitting a guys throat because he asked him to stop pissing on his couch. This 14 yr sentence included assault on a bystander and burglary. I want fair trials for everyone but I want fair justice Too! I hope you do.

[Galen]

I doubt it would work. These type of people are completely insane and incapable of rational thought. If they could come to the conclusion that they would'nt get any public exposure and it would'nt achieve what they wanted, I doubt they would be considering it in the first place. No, they are timebombs waiting to go off and I dont think we have any concrete answers how to keep that from happening. A better mental health care system might help, but for some, by the time it's established they are a danger it will be too late.

[C5 Golfer]

I doubt it would work. These type of people are completely insane and incapable of rational thought. If they could come to the conclusion that they would'nt get any public exposure and it would'nt achieve what they wanted, I doubt they would be considering it in the first place. No, they are timebombs waiting to go off and I dont think we have any concrete answers how to keep that from happening. A better mental health care system might help, but for some, by the time it's established they are a danger it will be too late.

I think if you read his suicide note you might change your mind -- here is one of the lines from that note ""Just think tho I'm gonna be (expletive) famous,"

Seems like a pretty conclusive thought just before he made the big decision, I do not think he would have done what he did if he was not going to be famous and who are the people that make someone like this famous?

[bobdea]

on the perp being rational. So, let say he was to a point so he does something else like posts a video on youtube the day before or a hour before so word gets out of who it was anyway.

In his mind probably just being known as the Omaha shooter would be fine.

Your idea while having good intent is just not well thought out and would not be effective except in that it would be yet another instance where free speech is stifled.

[C5 Golfer]

Yea, I guess you guys are right... There is nothing that can be done. Damn, I wonder where and how many next time.

[bobdea]

altering the culture of fear that we've cultivated in the US. the "world is so dangerous we can't do anything without a bullet proof vest" mentality plays right into the hands of people who do these things.

Making mentioning their names illegal as much sense as making suicide illegal, it makes no difference people will still do it.

[Dr D]

America Needs More CCW: ŠSuppose the Omaha mall held, say, 5,000 people busily shopping. If that were so, we would know now that it is less than a one in 5,000 chance that a law- abiding American will be carrying a firearm. And for all the citizens of Nebraska that could have been saved this week, that's a pathetic performance by societyŠIf one out of every 500 people were utilizing a concealed carry permit in Nebraska today, there could have been 10 guns trained on target when the adolescent evil fool began his self-indulgent terrorism. But because we do not have even one in 5,000, there are nine people dead. (Commentary ignores that the mall in question was posted ³no guns.²)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59069

CCRKBA Comments: Eight more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness at Omaha's Westroads Mall this week, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today that the real outrage of this crime is that it happened in a "gun free zone" where law-abiding private citizens are disarmed by mall rules and state statute. "In the wake of this horrible crime," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "gun control extremists are already demanding more useless gun control legislation. A prohibition on firearms at Westroads Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did give him a risk-free environment in which to unleash his rampage."

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS229616+06-Dec-2007+PRN20071206

John Lott Comments: A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven¹t heard about this tragedy. 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 zoneŠ

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html