Two News People Shot, Killed, On Air in Virginia

[Fez]

So this assassin and the reporter were a couple , close enough that he had just moved into her pad? That's a crazy development. I don't have any interest in seeing footage of this. I am pretty interested in what motives could've been involved though. Did the fugitive survive the self inflicted gunshot to himself?

 

No. The reporter was dating one of the station's evening anchors, and they had moved in together. The cameraman was dating engaged to a producer at the station. There's no evidence either of them were romantically involved with the killer. The only known connection so far, is that the killer also worked at the station for a less than a year back in 2013. He had filed a workplace discrimination suit against the reporter and others at the station, all of which were dismissed as being without merit. He was eventually fired for having violent outbursts, and after he was fired station security had to escort him from the building.

 

ETA:  :ph34r:

[James Arryn]

Completely OT: 'gruntled' is one of those words that sounds like it ought to mean the exact opposite of what it means, which is probably why we need only ever use it when prefaced by a 'dis'.

Semi OT: so long as it's not political, part of me always wants to remain as uninformed as possible about the shooter and his motives in situations like this because while talking about him I feel we are kinda now talking about the next him.

[Tears of Lys]

Yeah, we're all terribly upset and shocked by this. But surprised? No. At least you shouldn't be.

As long as there is such easy access to guns, these incidents will continue to take place. Maybe it'll happen to the other guy - at least that's what you secretly hope - but maybe not. Maybe the next "incident" will happen to you or your mother or your kid brother. In that case, everyone will be exclaiming, "Oh, how tragic," about YOU - until we all move on.


What the suffering fuck do guns rights people have against more stringent screening when buying handguns? But I constantly answer my own questions. They think it's a "slippery slope" that'll lead to more and more restrictions on gun ownership until one day Obama personally will be able to knock on their doors and take them into custody. I mean, what else could it be? I'd really like to know.

[Commodore]

What the suffering fuck do guns rights people have against more stringent screening when buying handguns? But I constantly answer my own questions. They think it's a "slippery slope" that'll lead to more and more restrictions on gun ownership until one day Obama personally will be able to knock on their doors and take them into custody. I mean, what else could it be? I'd really like to know.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419400/deadly-consequences-draconian-gun-laws-charles-c-w-cooke

[Theda Baratheon]

Absolutely horrific...was working when a friend told me about this. Just horrible. RIP Alison Parker & Adam Ward. 

[Swordfish]

Yeah, we're all terribly upset and shocked by this. But surprised? No. At least you shouldn't be.

As long as there is such easy access to guns, these incidents will continue to take place. Maybe it'll happen to the other guy - at least that's what you secretly hope - but maybe not. Maybe the next "incident" will happen to you or your mother or your kid brother. In that case, everyone will be exclaiming, "Oh, how tragic," about YOU - until we all move on.


What the suffering fuck do guns rights people have against more stringent screening when buying handguns? But I constantly answer my own questions. They think it's a "slippery slope" that'll lead to more and more restrictions on gun ownership until one day Obama personally will be able to knock on their doors and take them into custody. I mean, what else could it be? I'd really like to know.

 

There have been probably 50 threads about this exact topic which have explained it all in detail.

 

But I don't expect at this point anyone is really interested in discussing this topic rationally.  Easier to just express outrage, and whack away at strawmen.

[Shryke]

Yup.

 

But you know, we have been okay with that for decades. It has always been the case with children and firearm accidents. People are mostly content to lay the blame of those deaths at "irresponsible" gun owners and move on. Sandy Hook was a shift in the pattern, but the outcome is similar in kind. Our willingness to accept children, sometimes as young as toddlers, dying to firearm accidents or to accept the type of life a young child will grow up to have after s/he shot and killed someone by accident, it really wasn't a big step to take to also sort of just live with things like Sandy Hook. Columbine was another watershed, where high school kids were murdered. Again, we blamed it on mental illness issues and moved on. This is the slippery slop that is not all that slippery.

 

Interestingly this incident might, maybe, do more then killing a bunch of kindergartners did. Cause this time it's the media themselves getting attacked. Some people I chat with who work in news say they are getting a flurry of talk from everyone they know in the industry about this in a way they didn't with any previous shooting.

 

So hey, maybe some of the news might decide this isn't the country they want to live in. Not holding my breath though.

[Shryke]

The video of the guy filming himself shooting them is probably the most surprising and disturbing part of this whole incident.

 

Before his Twitter was deleted, apparently it contained basically a life story of sorts of himself and was started not too long ago. And all leading up to this incident, which he then posted online. Like a man writing his own eulogy/manifesto. Really fucked up.

 

But you know, the incident itself is just par for the course. The Onion said it last year and it's as true now as then:

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

[Tears of Lys]

There have been probably 50 threads about this exact topic which have explained it all in detail.
 
But I don't expect at this point anyone is really interested in discussing this topic rationally.  Easier to just express outrage, and whack away at strawmen.

I don't think I've ever seen a clear-cut answer to why the NRA fights tooth and nail even the slightest tightening of regulation on guns - even something as reasonable as longer background checks. This is **not** a strawman, this is fact.

From the NRA's own website, an official statement:

"NRA does NOT support universal background checks and is not working with Manchin to implement this type of legislation. NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes." https://home.nra.org/nraila/document/statement-regarding-universal-background-checks

Personally, I believe their reasoning for this is based on the "slippery slope" theory; i.e., give a little and before you know it, you have to give a lot.

Plus, their hardening of their stance on this matter (background checks) is due to one thing: money. Money from the membership, gun shop owners/dealers, who would suffer a serious blow to their profits if a percentage of their potential buyers were to have to submit to serious background checks. (Interesting to note that back in 1999 the NRA's position on this matter was what was called, by them, "reasonable.")

I don't get involved in threads that interminably discuss gun control since I feel that no one's mind is changed and the whole thing is a pointless exercise.

And meanwhile, we bury more innocents, killed because some disturbed or deranged individual felt wronged somehow. The whole thing disgusts me.

Anyhow, enough with the soapbox. RIP Alison Parker and Alan Ward.

[rocksniffer]

i have no words except for...

 

I don't think I've ever seen a clear-cut answer to why the NRA fights tooth and nail even the slightest tightening of regulation on guns - even something as reasonable as longer background checks. This is **not** a strawman, this is fact.

From the NRA's own website, an official statement:

"NRA does NOT support universal background checks and is not working with Manchin to implement this type of legislation. NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes." https://home.nra.org/nraila/document/statement-regarding-universal-background-checks

Personally, I believe their reasoning for this is based on the "slippery slope" theory; i.e., give a little and before you know it, you have to give a lot.

Plus, their hardening of their stance on this matter (background checks) is due to one thing: money. Money from the membership, gun shop owners/dealers, who would suffer a serious blow to their profits if a percentage of their potential buyers were to have to submit to serious background checks. (Interesting to note that back in 1999 the NRA's position on this matter was what was called, by them, "reasonable.")

I don't get involved in threads that interminably discuss gun control since I feel that no one's mind is changed and the whole thing is a pointless exercise.

And meanwhile, we bury more innocents, killed because some disturbed or deranged individual felt wronged somehow. The whole thing disgusts me.

Anyhow, enough with the soapbox. RIP Alison Parker and Alan Ward.

 ^^^THIS^^^^^

[Hutch]

I too, try to stay out of these threads but for a far different reason. Where I live, everyone is raised around guns. We are also raised with a far different respect for weapons. The way I was raised, and continue to carry on, is that guns are a tool, albeit a dangerous one. Like any tool it should only be used when nessacery, but should be used. Obviously I'm talking of hunting and such. My state is also very low income and many people, myself included, relay on game meat to get through the winter. I'm not saying that everyone needs and ar-15 to feed their family. what I am saying is that I know multiple families, mine included, that would have very tough winters iF not for game hunting. Because of these reasons, I respect the right to own a gun, but am also for Some restrictions. I don't believe the NRA to be completely right, but I also don't believe the anti-gun activists to be completely right either. Personally, I think that if everyone can get off their high horses for a second, we could happily find some middle ground./end rant.

[Shryke]

I don't think I've ever seen a clear-cut answer to why the NRA fights tooth and nail even the slightest tightening of regulation on guns - even something as reasonable as longer background checks. This is **not** a strawman, this is fact.

From the NRA's own website, an official statement:

"NRA does NOT support universal background checks and is not working with Manchin to implement this type of legislation. NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes." https://home.nra.org/nraila/document/statement-regarding-universal-background-checks

Personally, I believe their reasoning for this is based on the "slippery slope" theory; i.e., give a little and before you know it, you have to give a lot.

Plus, their hardening of their stance on this matter (background checks) is due to one thing: money. Money from the membership, gun shop owners/dealers, who would suffer a serious blow to their profits if a percentage of their potential buyers were to have to submit to serious background checks. (Interesting to note that back in 1999 the NRA's position on this matter was what was called, by them, "reasonable.")

I don't get involved in threads that interminably discuss gun control since I feel that no one's mind is changed and the whole thing is a pointless exercise.

And meanwhile, we bury more innocents, killed because some disturbed or deranged individual felt wronged somehow. The whole thing disgusts me.

Anyhow, enough with the soapbox. RIP Alison Parker and Alan Ward.

 

The NRA likes to aid their big donors (gun makers) in selling guns and likes to support conservative causes. And the NRA is a very influential lobbying group with the GOP. That explains everything you are wondering about really.

 

Their entire position aids their main goal of ginning up anger among the conservative base and of boosting gun sales (ps - invest in gun stocks right before Clinton wins in 2016)

[Tears of Lys]

The NRA likes to aid their big donors (gun makers) in selling guns and likes to support conservative causes. And the NRA is a very influential lobbying group with the GOP. That explains everything you are wondering about really.
 
Their entire position aids their main goal of ginning up anger among the conservative base and of boosting gun sales (ps - invest in gun stocks right before Clinton wins in 2016)

My "wondering" is mostly facetious.

As for hunting rifles and the like, I have no problem with that at all - especially if someone depends on the meat they procure this way to feed themselves and their family. My views changed drastically as I learned more and more about the factory farming system years ago.

[Fragile Bird]

Some details are now emerging about the shooter. He got fired two years ago because he had violent outbursts, and when fired they had to call the police to escort him out.

And a 'tipping point' (the words used in news reports) seems to have been the church shootings in Charleston. He went out and bought a gun two days later.

This was an angry man.

[mcbigski]

I heard the shit bag killer's tirade describe as a manifesto on the news.  Kind of made me wonder, leaving Marx aside (for the sake of the euro commie symps here) has there ever been anyone, anywhere, who wrote a so called 'manifesto' who wasn't a total asshole?

[James Arryn]

I heard the shit bag killer's tirade describe as a manifesto on the news.  Kind of made me wonder, leaving Marx aside (for the sake of the euro commie symps here) has there ever been anyone, anywhere, who wrote a so called 'manifesto' who wasn't a total asshole?

The answer to this depends entirely on how you feel about such people as Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, Mahatma Gandhi and arguably Jesus Christ.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I agree with Tears of Lys comments about the futility of getting into the gun control arguments and neither side ever moves their position. In the U.S. it's been a classic wedge issue for as long as I can remember.
Wedge issue = waste of energy for me.

Brief History of the USA from Bowling for Columbine- http://youtu.be/lGYFRzf2Xww

[Commodore]

given that US gun violence has been declining precipitously, never understood the defeatist attitude people have about it
 
perhaps they are defeatist about the concurrent (but perhaps not correlating) increase in gun ownership and liberalization of gun laws

[Hayyoth]

The answer to this depends entirely on how you feel about such people as Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, Mahatma Gandhi and arguably Jesus Christ.

Did Jesus write a manifesto?

 

 

given that US gun violence has been declining precipitously, never understood the defeatist attitude people have about it
 
perhaps they are defeatist about the concurrent (but perhaps not correlating) increase in gun ownership and liberalization of gun laws

We should all be happy that violence in general and gun violence in particular is at multi decade lows. The vast majority of gun crime isn't  crazy white men shooting up movie theaters, but these gain a million times more attention than the multiple murders that happen in a quiet weekend in Chicago. I'm not sure why that should be, human nature I guess, feelz over realz.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

given that US gun violence has been declining precipitously, never understood the defeatist attitude people have about it
 
perhaps they are defeatist about the concurrent (but perhaps not correlating) increase in gun ownership and liberalization of gun laws

 

What's that now?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/10/america-gun-ownership-hunting-rates-record-lows

The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it’s ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

 

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32% of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That’s a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

 

The drop in the number of Americans who own a gun or live in a household with one is probably linked to a decline in the popularity of hunting, from 32% who said they lived in a household with at least one hunter in 1977 to less than half that number now.

 

Now, it is true that there have been more gun sales:

That the number of households with at least one gun is declining doesn’t necessarily mean that the number being purchased is on the decline. Data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system shows that in recent years there has actually been an increase in the number of background checks being run, suggesting the total number of firearms being purchased is going up.

 

But those are concentrated in fewer hands than they were in the 1980s, the General Social Survey finds. The 2014 poll finds that 22% of Americans own a firearm, down from a high of 31% who said so in 1985.

 

Thankfully the ability to kill someone with a gun is probably not continuous with the amount of guns a person owns, after the first couple. A mass murderer like Adam Lanza with a more than a half dozen guns in his household could have done the same damage if there were only the couple he actually used.