PDA

View Full Version : Is Wikipedia Suppressing Advantage of CCWs?


Paladin
04-17-2007, 7:23 AM
The recent tragedy of the Virginia Tech massacre makes the Trolley Square mall shooting in UT very relevant. There, the BG was better armed using both a shotgun and a handgun as well as having a backpack full of ammo. Yet the number of killed (4 + BG) and injured (4?) was far less partly because an off-duty LEO was packing in violation of the mall's "No Weapons" policy. The outcome in the Trolley Square incident is our best defense against the antis who will try to use the VT incident to pass new "gun control" laws and increase the number of "gun-free zones."

Naturally, the antis don't want the facts of the Trolley Square shooting widely known. If you go to the Wikipedia article re it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting) you will see a note that they are considering merging the shooting article with an article about the BG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulejman_Talovic). Surprise! That bio article does NOT mention either the mall's "no weapons" policy or the fact that an off-duty LEO was the one who stopped the massacre. Even the Trolley Square article does not make it clear that the first person to engage the BG was the off-duty LEO. Neither does it mention that the mall has a "no weapons" policy that required CCW permit holders to disarm before entering the mall.

If you are a contributor to Wikipedia, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trolley_Square_shooting , "Proposed Merger" and "Oppose" and let them know that the shooting should stand on its own so that students and researchers interested in it won't have to sort through the bio info to get the facts of the incident. The Tyler courthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Courtroom_Shooting) and Beltway shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) get their own articles and so should the Trolley Square.

Under "CCW Prohibited," they need a citation for Trolley Square mall's No Weapons policy. Try: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/uploaded_images/HPIM0240-724381.jpg noting policy/rule #10. Be sure to add that to the main article as well. If it wasn't for one off-duty LEO choosing to disobey the mall's policy, that BG would have had an "open season" on shoppers until on-duty LEOs showed up. However, if that mall had a "No Weapons Without a Permit" policy, other innocent people may have had a chance to defend their lives.

Also, I was unable to find a Wikipedia article re the Tacoma Mall shooting (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002641156_mallshooting23m.html) where a GG CCW'er tried to talk a BG active shooter into stopping and was shot in the chest w/an AK for his efforts. Not a good case for CCWs, but still deserving of a Wikipedia article.

grammaton76
04-17-2007, 7:43 AM
Also, I was unable to find a Wikipedia article re the Tacoma Mall shooting (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002641156_mallshooting23m.html) where a GG CCW'er tried to talk a BG active shooter into stopping and was shot in the chest w/an AK for his efforts. Not a good case for CCWs, but still deserving of a Wikipedia article.

Not a good case for CCW's, but a very good case for, "if you draw it, use it".

From my perspective, for NOT pulling the trigger, the blood of everyone who was shot after him is somewhat on the CCW'ers hands.

MrTuffPaws
04-17-2007, 8:00 AM
If you think the article needs updating, then by all means please do so. That is the nice thing about Wiki. Just don't make it a bias diatribe about the goodness of CCW. Fair and balanced and all that.

EDIT: Ugh, too early and no coffee.

jnojr
04-17-2007, 9:44 AM
If you "correct" a wikipedia article, there is a swarm of Kool-Aid drinkers constantly monitoring to fix your corrections.

I wouldn't waste my time.

bbq_ribs
04-17-2007, 9:57 AM
I've found that many of the "editors" on wikipedia are basically nothing more than liberal snot nosed college punks. I go there as a starting point for things, but that's about it.

MrTuffPaws
04-17-2007, 10:54 AM
I've found that many of the "editors" on wikipedia are basically nothing more than liberal snot nosed college punks. I go there as a starting point for things, but that's about it.

:rolleyes:

Them libs are taking over the world!!!! Sorry to tell you this, but there are many many things out there that are true and considered to be progressive or liberal by the "conservative" crowd. Far be it from me to stop you from being offended by just about everything though.

Incitatus
04-17-2007, 11:03 AM
:rolleyes:

Them libs are taking over the world!!!! Sorry to tell you this, but there are many many things out there that are true and considered to be progressive or liberal by the "conservative" crowd. Far be it from me to stop you from being offended by just about everything though.


Your comment is politically motivated, has nothing to do with the clear evidence presented by the poster and is absolutely irrelevant to the case in question.
Stop being a party activist. This forum isn't moveon.org

ketec_owner
04-17-2007, 11:09 AM
If you "correct" a wikipedia article, there is a swarm of Kool-Aid drinkers constantly monitoring to fix your corrections.

I wouldn't waste my time.

Well, Wikipedia is about being balanced and objective. But you'll need citations to support your entries and not simply opinion. It's supposed to be about facts and not "original research" - meaning it's not for people opinion. Cite references and established research and you'll get it posted. I've updated several articles with no issues.

MrTuffPaws
04-17-2007, 12:04 PM
Your comment is politically motivated, has nothing to do with the clear evidence presented by the poster and is absolutely irrelevant to the case in question.
Stop being a party activist. This forum isn't moveon.org

WTF?!?! Good freaking lord. Nor is it Free Republic. We have my self telling someone that he is overly sensitive in thinking that wiki is controlled by snot-nosed liberal punks, and you have the balls to call me a party activist?

Wiki is pretty much public. If one thinks the content is wrong then they can change it. Hopefully they will have provide sources backing up their changes. If you think it is too liberal, then change it. Just don't play the fool not show sources backing up your claimed facts.

MrTuffPaws
04-17-2007, 12:06 PM
Well, Wikipedia is about being balanced and objective. But you'll need citations to support your entries and not simply opinion. It's supposed to be about facts and not "original research" - meaning it's not for people opinion. Cite references and established research and you'll get it posted. I've updated several articles with no issues.

Your comment is politically motivated, has nothing to do with the clear evidence presented by the poster and is absolutely irrelevant to the case in question.
Stop being a party activist. This forum isn't moveon.org




:D
Sorry, but the above reply is so good I could not help but use it again. All credit goes to Incitatus. Using the quote tags would have made it confusing.

Scarecrow Repair
04-17-2007, 4:43 PM
Stop being a party activist. This forum isn't moveon.org

It ain't dittohead.com either.