The Mall in Columbia Shooting: What We Should Have Learned by Now

The Baltimore Sun published an extensive article (which you can access here) that covers the shooting at The Mall in Columbia on January 25 of this year. After reading the piece, I could do nothing but shake my head as the chilling details sounded all too familiar. After the Newtown tragedy, I had become heavily engaged in researching and commenting on gun control issues, including the factors commonly found around mass shooting incidents. This incident at The Mall in Columbia was a textbook case of points that gun rights advocates have been stating all along, but these points seem to fall on deaf ears, or at least they fail to sway those who have an agenda to disarm law abiding citizens.

Key Points

1. The shooter was inspired by the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999. He waited until the exact time that the Columbine shooters began their shooting spree to start his own shooting spree. He even committed suicide in the same manner as one of the Columbine shooters.

2. The shooter suffered from mental health issues and indicated in his journal that he had been hearing voices in his head. He also indicated a lack of emotions and feeling of empathy. Although he admitted to hearing voices to a doctor, he did not seek or receive any treatment afterwards.

3. The shooter had been planning the incident for months prior to the January 25th incident. He had been researching mass shootings, especially Columbine.

4. The shooter brought plenty of ammunition and even a bomb that did not detonate. The police have no answer as to why he chose to end his shooting spree at the time he did, as he could have easily kept the shooting spree going.

5. The shooter carried out his plans with a Mossberg 500 shotgun that he purchased on December 10, 2013, well after Maryland's new Firearms Safety Act went into effect on October 1st of the same year, which included an "assault weapons" ban. The shotgun that was used is one of the more popular shotguns available, and is not considered an "assault weapon." It is clear that the shooter had time to reload and plenty of ammo to use. The shooter fired 9 rounds, which is more than this particular shotgun can hold at one time.

During the press conference that revealed all of these details, Howard County Police Chief William McMahon pointed out the need to focus on mental illness. This is something that many gun rights advocates have been saying all along. Nothing in Maryland's Firearms Safety Act of 2013 does anything to address situations like this despite the fact that the Newtown incident, which shares many of the key points above, was used as an excuse to pass the legislation.

I'll leave you with this quote from Mr. Vincent DeMarco of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence and my reaction.

Based on what we know, this tragedy could have been much worse. The shooter bought the shotgun he used at a gun store in Rockville, MD in Decemeber of 2013. This was after Maryland's new Firearm Saftey Act of 2013 went into effect on October 1. As a result, the shooter was not able to buy an assault weapon or a magazine that could fire more than 10 bullets at one time. We will never know how many lives were saved because he could not buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47.  We hope this will inspire other states and the federal government to also ban these weapons of mass destruction.

Thank goodness that the shooter didn't choose to emulate the Columbine or Virginia Tech shooters and just bought multiple guns with multiple magazines and ammunition. At the end of the day, the tool doesn't matter. It's the mindset of the individual that does matter, but I'm sure for people like Vincent DeMarco, they can't be bothered with things like that when it doesn't suit their political agenda.

Minor edit: Although this was not brought up in the original Baltimore Sun article, another key point that this incident shares with almost every other incident is that it happened in a gun free zone. However, in Maryland a carry permit is almost impossible to obtain anyways since Maryland is a "may issue" state.

Bad Journalism Spreading Misinformation

Facebook issued a statement due to pressure from anti-gun groups to take down gun-related pages. Anti-gun groups have stated that anyone can buy a gun on Facebook without a background check, a claim which is patently false. Facebook's policy statement in reaction to the anti-gun groups highlights two key elements on how they will handle gun related posts. The first is that Facebook will now prevent minors from viewing posts related to firearms. The second is that any user who sets up a transaction via Facebook is reminded to follow the law, and that they cannot advertise a willingness to evade the law. That's it. Nothing too big right?

Well not if you follow the mainstream media like USA Today who touted this as a major victory for gun control groups. The author, Natalie DiBlasio reports:

"The social media giant is blocking minors from seeing postings of gun sales and will take down sales that don't require a background check or cross state lines."

However that is not what the statement by Facebook lays out. Facebook's statement says:

"We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law. For example, private sellers of firearms in the U.S. will not be permitted to specify “no background check required,” nor can they offer to transact across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer."

Again, Facebook is basically saying that people cannot advertise a willingness to break current firearms laws. A private transaction can still be arranged through Facebook for a gun sale as long as it follows the law.

Based upon this false information, Natalie DiBlasio reports that the Facebook statement is a major win for gun control groups. I'm sure it would be if only it were true.

Update:

After going back and forth with Ms. DiBlasio on Twitter, I confirmed with a Facebook representative that posts promoting a private gun offer will remain on Facebook as long as they do not violate Facebook community standards. Per my email exchange with said Facebook representative, these standards are:

• Does the post include a specific indication that the person is willing to evade or help others evade the law?  If so, we will remove the post. If not, it will remain on Facebook.
  • Two examples we’ve pointed out as specific indications are offers that demonstrate a willingness to sell a firearm across state lines without a licensed dealer; and offers where someone specifies no background check is required.  
• Does the post include a specific, direct threat against another person’s (or group’s) safety? If so, we will remove the post and potentially notify law enforcement. If not, it will remain on Facebook.

This confirms that Natalie DiBlasio's article is providing false information about Facebook policy. The statement that the social media network will take down sales that don't require a background check or cross state lines are not being taken down. The policy simply states that you can not advertise a willingness to evade or help others evade the law.

Media Plays on Audience's Liberal Bias?

I'll leave this screen captures here of IGN.com's main page. You'll notice the different headlines, but the headline for the article in the showcase for the promoted articles is very different from the original title of the article. It seems like someone changed the headline in order to get more clicks / views from their liberal audience.

If you are a news organization, you are not at liberty to lie or mislead your audience. Your job is to provide information, not misinformation. Where's the accountability?

Even in Chicago a Good Guy With a Gun Can Stop a Bad Guy With One

This story from The Blaze made me think for a bit. Long story short, three thugs decide to commit armed robbery with a gun against a person at a gas station who happened to be filling up their car with gas. As the events unfold, the story ends with the one dead robber, two criminals on the run, and the victim alive and well, all because the victim had his own gun to defend himself. The real kicker is that all of this unfolded in the rabidly anti-gun city of Chicago, where its impossible for law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm to defend themselves. Well except for law enforcement, as it so happens that the victim was an off-duty Sheriff's sergeant.

But what if the victim wasn't law enforcement? What would have happened to another less fortunate law abiding citizen? They wouldn't have had any means to defend themselves at all, and they would have totally been at the mercy of the armed robbers. By definition, criminals don't obey laws, so all the anti-gun laws and policy in Chicago has done is create a populace of victims.

I'll leave the reader with this thought. If you make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to own firearms to defend themselves, then of course all you are going to hear is people using firearms for nefarious purposes. Anti-gun policy sets the stage for nothing but news of bad guys committing heinous crimes with guns, while making a good guy will not be able to defend themselves with a gun. Maybe that's why gun control advocates say self defense with guns rarely happens… because they want to make it impossible for it to happen.