Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Send your comments to this show about mall security.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    Here's what I wrote:



    "Mall security is nonexistent. The loss-prevention crew (otherwise known as "security") has no duty to protect the patrons of the establishment, and the police have no duty to protect any individual, only the public at large. In any case, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Most urban and suburban shopping malls have a policy of no firearms allowed on the premises (legally carried or not) and therefore create so-called victim disarmament zones.A brief search of the history of mass shootings will quickly show the interested observer that these crimes are committed overwhelmingly in places where guns have been banned. Criminals by definition are lawbreakers and have no qualms about breaking these rules. If one is intent on murder, why would they be dissuaded by a sign at the mall entrance banning their weapon of choice? Of course they would ignore it, and innocent people are put at risk because of that. It's intesting to note that the shooting at the Trolley Square shopping mall in Utah was stopped by an off-duty police officer who broke the rules and brought his concealed firearm in with him.

    Laws and rules that disarm the general public do more harm than good and should be abolished."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    I merely asked:

    "Why do you think there hasn't there been very much coverage about the Westroads Mall being a "Gun Free Zone" where all weapons are strictly banned?"

    Of course, I already know the answer to this question. I'm just curious whether I get an answer, or not.

    I'm leaning towards "not", but if I do, I'm curious what their answer will look like.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    I merely asked:

    "Why do you think there hasn't there been very much coverage about the Westroads Mall being a "Gun Free Zone" where all weapons are strictly banned?"

    Of course, I already know the answer to this question. I'm just curious whether I get an answer, or not.

    I'm leaning towards "not", but if I do, I'm curious what their answer will look like.
    There hasn't been a lot, but I noted Fox News ran the John Lott article about this subject on their main page all day on Wednesday.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  5. #5
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Has anyone seen any big name T.V. news shows mention this on their broadcasts? I haven't.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Troy, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    Here is my comment to the show.



    I send this comment in concern of your show's, as well as your networks lack of journalistic integrity when dealing with the mall shootings that recently occurred in our great nation. I have not once noticed in ANY broadcast, be it on this network or any other the mention of the "Weapons Policy" of the mall in question. Why does the media insist on ignoring that where these atrocities take place, good, honest, law-abiding Americans are explicitly denied the right to defend themselves? In Nebraska, as well as in many other states, the laws that provide for the citizen's right to carry a weapon in defense of himself also make it legal for businesses to ban them, in belief that their undermanned, undertrained, and unarmed security staff will suffice to pacify the public while they patronize the business. Do you, or any other network for that matter, understand that not even police officers, let alone unarmed security guards, have a legal obligation to protect you? Why then, do our current laws support a system where we must leave our own fates in the hands of those who are not required to protect us? The cold hard fact is that if you want to be safe and protected, you must be pro-active about it and take it upon yourself to be prepared. This means different things for different people. For me, and millions of other people in this great nation, it means arming ourselves with guns to defend what's ours, a sentiment shared by those great men who founded this nation. It is my hope, that from this tragedy, America will gain the realization that no one is going to protect them from the evils of this world. Unless they take the initiative to defend themselves, they, their property, and their families are all in danger of falling victim to egregious acts like the ones that took place in Omaha, or at Columbine, or on the campus of Virginia Tech. As Alexander Hamilton, the author of the Federalist Papers wrote, "the best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    +1

    Good letter.



  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    vmathis12019 wrote:
    SNIP
    I send this comment in concern of your show's, as well as your networks lack of journalistic integrity when dealing with the mall shootings that recently occurred in our great nation. I have not once noticed in ANY broadcast, be it on this network or any other the mention of the "Weapons Policy" of the mall in question. Why does the media insist on ignoring that where these atrocities take place, good, honest, law-abiding Americans are explicitly denied the right to defend themselves? In Nebraska, as well as in many other states, the laws that provide for the citizen's right to carry a weapon in defense of himself also make it legal for businesses to ban them, in belief that their undermanned, undertrained, and unarmed security staff will suffice to pacify the public while they patronize the business. Do you, or any other network for that matter, understand that not even police officers, let alone unarmed security guards, have a legal obligation to protect you? Why then, do our current laws support a system where we must leave our own fates in the hands of those who are not required to protect us? The cold hard fact is that if you want to be safe and protected, you must be pro-active about it and take it upon yourself to be prepared. This means different things for different people. For me, and millions of other people in this great nation, it means arming ourselves with guns to defend what's ours, a sentiment shared by those great men who founded this nation. It is my hope, that from this tragedy, America will gain the realization that no one is going to protect them from the evils of this world. Unless they take the initiative to defend themselves, they, their property, and their families are all in danger of falling victim to egregious acts like the ones that took place in Omaha, or at Columbine, or on the campus of Virginia Tech. As Alexander Hamilton, the author of the Federalist Papers wrote, "the best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    Great commentary!!

    About the Hamiltonian comment, I've stopped using it. I've come to suspect that it is derogatory and elitist. Like saying, "I quit trying to teach my students algebra because they're not capable of understanding it or commmiting the time to learn it; the best I canaimfor is simplemultiplication anddivision."


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    About the Hamiltonian comment, I've stopped using it.¬* I've come to suspect that it is derogatory and elitist.¬* Like saying, "I quit trying to teach my students algebra because they're not capable of understanding it or commmiting the time to learn it; the best I can¬*aim¬*for is simple¬*multiplication and¬*division."¬*
    Hmm, I thought of it as just a different way of saying, "The great purpose is that every man be armed." (Patrick Henry)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •