Press Bias in Sutherland Springs Reporting

A GFZ is a zone with out guns!!!
Click to expand...
Not exactly. In this context, GFZ has a specific meaning--it is not just a zone without guns, it is specifically a zone where guns are prohibited.

The difference between the government prohibiting firearms in an area and people voluntarily choosing not to carry there is quite a significant difference.
What if he planned on going to another location and continuing his shooting spree?
Click to expand...
It is possible he meant to continue the attack at another location--also, one presumes that at some point the police would have caught up with him and a shootout would have resulted.

Willeford's actions prevented any of that from happening.
 
Why does it matter how/why a gun free exists?

If the shooter(s) knows he's bringing the only gun into a zone free of guns (ZFG)
and he/they kill the unarmed victims, How is this not a gun free zone (GFZ).

Just look into a mirror, Your picking at details and missing the whole point!
 
RaySendero said:
Why does it matter how/why a gun free exists?

If the shooter(s) knows he's bringing the only gun into a zone free of guns (ZFG)
and he/they kill the unarmed victims, How is this not a gun free zone (GFZ).

Just look into a mirror, Your picking at details and missing the whole point!
Click to expand...
Respectfully, you are the one missing the whole point. For a couple or three decades, the term "gun-free zone" has been used to describe places where the presence of firearms in the possession of civilians is prohibited, either by law or by decree of the property owner. That means a would-be assailant can approach such a venue with a very reasonable expectation that there will not be any armed people within that venue.

By contrast, in a location where personal carry of firearms is not prohibited, a would-be assailant has no way of knowing whether or not the people inside are carrying. In a non-GFZ church holding 50 people (in Texas), an assailant would have no way of knowing if there will be no guns waiting for him (which you want to call a gun-free zone), or one gun, or ten guns, or fifty guns.

That's a significant difference in practical terms. However, that aside, the term "gun free zone" is used to refer to places where carry is prohibited, and coming along at this point in time to argue that it means something else is just shoveling water against the tide.
 
And regarding the additional risk of "Gun Free Zones", I don't dispute that many shootings have taken place in places where guns are NOT prohibited, but that doesn't mean that somehow a place where they are prohibited is safer or even as safe as the unposted location. And we all know of at least one mass shooting, the movie theater in Aurora, CO where the shooter Holmes chose the ONLY movie theater in the area that was posted as "No Guns Allowed". He bypassed other theaters that were showing the Batman movie that he apparently was obsessed with, going to the one where he could be fairly confident that he would not be opposed by armed patrons. "Gun Free Zones" are obviously not going to deter a criminal with a posted sign on the door, but may cause a shooter to choose that as a relatively "target rich environment" with the assumption that law abiding citizens will be unarmed.
 
Respectfully, you are the one missing the whole point.
Click to expand...


Devin Kelley shot dead 25+ people and wounded 20 more in a Sutherland Springs, TX church where not one of the members were armed.

Most homes in Texas are armed GZs- Most churches aren't GFZs
Duh - NO GUNS

No guns, GFZs, I know it when I see it - You should, too.
It just ain't that hard ZFGs = GFZs and vice-versa.
 
Before people get all hot and bothered about gun free zones, recall that:

1. Even in shall issue states - the proportion of folks with licenses or permits is low. Maybe 1 to 6% of the population.

2. The majority of those folks don't carry religiously, so to speak. Some surveys indicate 80% of them don't
 
I know I have said it in other thread but I am one these, "not carry religiously," people. That being said, I have been, "making the effort," to carry as much as possible lately.

I also think that we are getting to a point where mandatory carry should be legislated. I think anybody who can legally own a firearm should be required to carry unless they can show good cause as to why they do not carry.

Instead of carry permits we should be issuing, "conscientious objector cards," and disability exemptions. Everybody else should carry.

Gun free zone should be renamed Mass Killer Facilitation Zones and as a country and society we should look again at the reasoning behind 2nd Amendment and the racist history of Gun Control.

There is no way for a defenseless person to defend themselves against evil and tyranny.
 
If you consider yourself defenseless because you don't have a gun on you, then you have taken the first administrative step to being a victim. If you think a gun is your only defense, your personal defense strategy is ill-conceived.
 
"I also think that we are getting to a point where mandatory carry should be legislated. I think anybody who can legally own a firearm should be required to carry unless they can show good cause as to why they do not carry."

Huh?! This is a bad idea, in my opinion. To carry or not to carry is my choice to make, and should remain so.
 
No guns, GFZs, I know it when I see it - You should, too.
It just ain't that hard ZFGs = GFZs and vice-versa.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to point out that the term "GFZ" could be more precisely worded. But reality is that, in spite of its being less than perfectly precise in its wording, it does have a well-established and universally accepted meaning and trying to pretend that it means something other than what it does isn't productive.

GFZ is always used to mean "A zone where guns are prohibited by law". It does not mean "A zone where there happen to be no guns at a particular time."
 
Double Naught Spy said:
If you think a gun is your only defense, your personal defense strategy is ill-conceived.
Click to expand...

"There is no way for a defenseless person to defend themselves against evil and tyranny. "

Please consider, I'm quite aware of what I am saying. I am making a statement of fact, "defenseless people, can not defend themselves." I am not stating A: that I am a defenseless person, B: that guns are the only form of self defense.

That being said, "in the United States where exists a gun culture, a 2nd Amendment, and an armed criminal element," it is hard to argue that one can defend themselves completely when unarmed. Even assuming one has exceptional self defense training, and is fully skilled in unarmed combat.

I also train jiu jitsu. There is always discussion about the effectiveness of martial arts and self defense. This article/interview comes to mind: http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/vau...he-second-most-effective-form-of-self-defense

--> SonOfScubaDiver, "Huh?! This is a bad idea, in my opinion. To carry or not to carry is my choice to make, and should remain so. "

I know, its not a real solution, viable solution, or even good solution. It was more of, "just a thought."
 
JohnKSa wrote:

GFZ is always used to mean "A zone where guns are prohibited by law". It does not mean "A zone where there happen to be no guns at a particular time."
Click to expand...


If their had been a sign posted "GFZ",
Would that help you stop arguing that 25 people were killed
in a zone free of guns and it was GFZ?

Think this is one example of media bia!
Just stuck on a definition and can't see the truth in the situation.
 
Vito said:
And regarding the additional risk of "Gun Free Zones", I don't dispute that many shootings have taken place in places where guns are NOT prohibited, but that doesn't mean that somehow a place where they are prohibited is safer or even as safe as the unposted location. And we all know of at least one mass shooting, the movie theater in Aurora, CO where the shooter Holmes chose the ONLY movie theater in the area that was posted as "No Guns Allowed". He bypassed other theaters that were showing the Batman movie that he apparently was obsessed with, going to the one where he could be fairly confident that he would not be opposed by armed patrons. "Gun Free Zones" are obviously not going to deter a criminal with a posted sign on the door, but may cause a shooter to choose that as a relatively "target rich environment" with the assumption that law abiding citizens will be unarmed.
Click to expand...
Awhile back, in order to have some statistics as "ammunition" with which to approach my state's legislature about loosening up some of our idiotic anti-gun laws, I started compiling a spreadsheet of mass murders, to document (among other things) whether or not declaring certain venues as gun-free actually has any significant benefit. The spreadsheet has gotten too large for me to attempt to post a screen shot, but I can give you some totals:

Total killed by guns in NON gun-free zones: 167
Total killed by guns in gun-free zones: 363
That's more than twice as many people killed by guns in gun-free zones.

Total wounded/injured by guns in NON gun-free zones: 168
Total wounded/injured by guns in gun-free zones: 866
That's more than FIVE TIMES as many people killed by guns in gun-free zones.

I think the difference is significant. But ... this is only those killed or injured by guns. Look what happens if we factor in attacks involving weapons other than just firearms (and, yes, this includes 9/11 and Oklahoma City):

Total killed in gun-free zones: 3,525
Total wounded/injured in gun-free zones: 8,914

The numbers are right there, and anyone can start surfing the Internet and digging up the same numbers I've found. You don't have to take my word for it. The bottom line is -- anybody who thinks that prohibiting firearms makes people "safe" is sadly deluded.
 
Last edited:
If their had been a sign posted "GFZ",
Would that help you stop arguing that 25 people were killed
in a zone free of guns and it was GFZ?
Click to expand...
1. If there had been 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted or if there were a TX law or a Federal Law prohibiting carry in the church then it would have actually been a GFZ. Posting a "GFZ" sign would be meaningless since it has no weight of law. But yes, hypothetically speaking, if there had been a sign posted that actually legally prohibited carry then it would be a GFZ. That was not the case, however. It was not a GFZ, because there was no legal prohibition against carrying there.

2. It does appear that it was a "zone free of guns"--at least it appears none of the victims were armed with firearms--however, the term GFZ is not used to refer simply a "zone free of guns" it specifically refers to a zone in which guns are prohibited by law. You don't have to take my word for it. You can look for examples elsewhere.

3. Since it was not a GFZ, no; I'm not going to say it was a GFZ and neither is anyone else who knows what the term means. The problem here isn't me nor is it the other people who are correctly using the term. It's that you have decided you are going to redefine a commonly accepted term to mean something other than what it means. You are certainly free to do that, but it won't change what the term actually means--it will just result in confusion for others and frustration for yourself.

For example, you could start saying that "green" is actually "red and saying that "red" is actually "green". But when you start telling people that when the traffic light is "green" they should stop and that they should go when it turns "red", they will be confused until they figure out that you're using the terms incorrectly and you will be frustrated at their confusion and "stubbornness" or "bia" or whatever you want to call it until you finally give up your incorrect definitions and start using the terms properly.
Think this is one example of media bia!
Click to expand...
No it's not.

The term GFZ is used by both anti- and pro-gun persons to mean the same thing. It is used the same by people both in and out of the media. The definition of GFZ is not an example of media bias. This is an example of the ridiculousness of one person trying to unilaterally redefine a commonly used term.

If you look around, you can easily verify the truth of my statement. Do some internet searches and you will be able to find people in and out of the media, and people who are both pro- and anti-gun all using the term in exactly the same way.
Just stuck on a definition and can't see the truth in the situation.
Click to expand...
Terms have commonly accepted meanings and that is precisely what makes them useful--if everyone could simply make up their own meanings for existing words and terms then it would be impossible to communicate by using them.

If you want to talk about GFZs then you will need to use the term the way everyone else uses it. If you don't, then you're just going to cause yourself frustration. You can keep saying that "green" is really "red", but you're not going to change anyone's mind because people already know the truth.
 
NYT said:
Also, Mr. Kelley had the kind of profile we are all coming to realize is common to mass shooters all over the United States: a white male, the angry loner, the spouse abuser, the animal torturer. A man who couldn’t hold down a job, a man who may or may not have been certifiably mentally ill but who was clearly mad at the world. It’s probably worth pointing out again — though I don’t expect it to change anything — that 26 people, half of them children, were killed before help arrived.
Click to expand...

It's probably also worth pointing out (but the writer did not do so) that when help arrived, it wasn't the police, who were still at least five minutes away from the scene. It was, as Wayne LaPierre might have expressed it, a "good guy with a gun."

From the second link:

NYT said:
“They accept the Second Amendment,” said Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals when the survey results were released. But they “also deeply grieve when weapons are used to take innocent lives.”
Click to expand...

I think almost everyone grieves when weapons are used to take innocent lives. We also grieve when earthquakes, hurricanes, or wildfires take innocent lives, but we don't try to outlaw earthquakes, hurricanes, and wildfires. When madmen employ "weapons" (a term that encompasses far more than AR-15 pattern rifles), the logical response should be to address how to prevent madmen from attacking innocent people, not to deprive innocent people of the use of popular and commonplace implements.
 
I read that article too, however the problem is that it directly contradicts Willeford's account.

According to Willeford, the attacker had already exited the church and was across the street from the church first time he saw him. He was not still inside the church finishing off victims.
Click to expand...

At the time of my post, I had not seen all that Willeford said. I agree with you, and stand corrected. Memories are not as exact as we sometimes suppose, and the lady was under tremendous stress, so her memory may well have been erroneous.
 
Before people get all hot and bothered about gun free zones, recall that:

1. Even in shall issue states - the proportion of folks with licenses or permits is low. Maybe 1 to 6% of the population.

2. The majority of those folks don't carry religiously, so to speak. Some surveys indicate 80% of them don't
Click to expand...

That is what I was alluding to in Post#18. When 80% or more of the 1-6% who can carry don't, you find out that just about everywhere is free of guns. This is why (bias coming) more guns less crime is so untrue no matter how many times you repeat it. "We need concealed carry because more guns means less crime." There is no causative relationship, certainly not at the levels that people are permitted/carrying. Even then, we can turn to police reports where convenience stores and such have had repeated robberies and repeated gunfights during robberies and are locations where the clerks are known to be armed, yet they get hit time and again.

Here is one of my favorite (if it can be termed that way) mass shootings. This guy attack a police substation, wounding 4 officers...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/23/michigan.shooting/index.html
Here is the split screen video of the event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21rjGAuhBo

It is interesting how often this event isn't mentioned when discussions of mass shootings occur. Oh sure, you hear the argument that nobody ever attacks a police station because the police are armed, but it happens. I can dig up more examples, but I don't think any others are mass shootings, but simply lends itself to another form of bias of how we conveniently overlook such shootings.

Awhile back, in order to have some statistics as "ammunition" with which to approach my state's legislature about loosening up some of our idiotic anti-gun laws, I started compiling a spreadsheet of mass murders, to document (among other things) whether or not declaring certain venues as gun-free actually has any significant benefit. The spreadsheet has gotten too large for me to attempt to post a screen shot, but I can give you some totals:

Total killed by guns in NON gun-free zones: 167
Total killed by guns in gun-free zones: 363
That's more than twice as many people killed by guns in gun-free zones.

Total wounded/injured by guns in NON gun-free zones: 168
Total wounded/injured by guns in gun-free zones: 866
That's more than FIVE TIMES as many people killed by guns in gun-free zones.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that since you covered mass murder, you probably missed more of the common mass murders. If you are looking at mass events, then more happen in the private sector than happen at malls, schools, and businesses. They can be a lot harder to find because they are often only locally reported. We don't like to use them, but sources such as these provide a lot of information and often provide links...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

You know, back in 2012, I put together this thread to help illustrate the point.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499623&highlight=pseudo+myth

There are a LOT of mass shootings that don't happen at malls, schools, and work places. They happen on the streets and in residences (very often residences with guns) and happen for all sorts of reasons and not just because some person is perceived as a "wacko" (sorry, Glenn) with mental issues. A stranger going wild with a gun in a GFZ is a very dangerous situation. So too is being on a street corner during a drive-by or being in a household when a jilted lover or some such person personally known to you decides to kill everyone in the household by shooting them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top