Two News People Shot, Killed, On Air in Virginia

[Hayyoth]

 

 

This shooting? No. There's some claims by the guy but it seems like nothing but a smokescreen for a personal vendetta.

 

 

 

That's cause he said that's what it was about and then went to a historic black church and shot a bunch of random black people.

 

This guy meanwhile started trying to craft his own framing of the issue before the shooting even happened. And then he went and shot a bunch of coworkers he disliked. So no, his claims that it's about race are not credible.

 

Sure.....I imagine if Flannigan was a white dude who'd  gone out and shot dead two black ex co-workers you'd be singing the same tune.

 

 

 

Dunno. That outburst is certainly ugly and gross, and I'd be willing to entertain the idea he may very well have harbored a deep hatred of white people in general. But I'm not seeing much in the excerpted portions of the manifesto that suggest this killing was in fact racially motivated. Seems most of his grievances are focused on fairly specific individuals in the workplace, and their perceived behavior towards him, not so much on the basis of their being white. He even specifically calls the Charlseton massacre a "tipping point", piling in what appears to be a long running feeling of resentment and isolation.

I think he was mainly a dude with a severe  personality disorder who wanted to go and shoot people, and then thought up some 'manifesto' to justify his actions and more importantly feed his narcissism. The thing is I think exactly the same about Roof. The point is one shooting was performed by a mad man whose motivation will remain a mystery caused by too little gun control, and the other was performed by a cold calculating racist and is a signifier of how millions of whites still hate blacks, confederate flags, #blacklivesmatter, with gun control as an afterthought. Folks are shameless about this kind of thing these days.

[Dr. Pepper]

Man, I'm really worried for reporters in the US. With so many shooting sprees happening across America, and the media almost always being in the line of fire for nutjobs over the most silliest issues, I can't help but worry about their safety. I mean is it too far-fetched to think so ?

Well it's pretty rare for journalists in the US to be targeted specifically because of their reporting.  The most recent case was in 2007.  As horrible as this recent shooting on air was, it's more the result of a disgruntled coworker rather than the two victims being targeted based on their reporting.  I guess there might be some concern over copycat crimes, people deciding to social media their own murders in the way this asshole did.  

[all swedes are racist]

Sure.....I imagine if Flannigan was a white dude who'd  gone out and shot dead two black ex co-workers you'd be singing the same tune.
 
 
 
I think he was mainly a dude with a severe  personality disorder who wanted to go and shoot people, and then thought up some 'manifesto' to justify his actions and more importantly feed his narcissism. The thing is I think exactly the same about Roof. The point is one shooting was performed by a mad man whose motivation will remain a mystery caused by too little gun control, and the other was performed by a cold calculating racist and is a signifier of how millions of whites still hate blacks, confederate flags, #blacklivesmatter, with gun control as an afterthought. Folks are shameless about this kind of thing these days.

Except, like, there's no real equivalency there. As opposed to Dylan Roof, Flannigan (as far as I've seen) has no history of identifying or associating with extreme anti-white groups or imagery. Fairly certain Hood had little to no personal connection to anyone present at the Charleston church; the congregation was simply a symbolic representation of his idea of the greater ills of the world (ie black folk)-- whereas Flannigan (or whatever) had perceived specific grievances against specific persons in relation to his specific self and situation.
Neither of them should have been allowed in the same room as a firearm, let alone allowed to own one, but to say both instances are so similar that any incongruity of response is hypocritical is disingenuous at best

[TerraPrime]

And people like Hayyoth continue to miss the distinction between institutional racism and personal racial animosity, as well as how the two interact with each other.

Plus, yes, Hood had a history of willingly associating with racial hate groups, embracing violent language and thoughts against racial minorities. Flannigan, on the other hand, thinks the world is out to get him because he's black. I guess in Hayyoth's world, the two are identical. :dunno:

[Shryke]

Sure.....I imagine if Flannigan was a white dude who'd  gone out and shot dead two black ex co-workers you'd be singing the same tune.

 

Yes. Why wouldn't I be?

 

There's no evidence of this guy associating with any hate-groups or the like. There is evidence of a massive persecution complex though.

[Ser Lepus]

About gun control, I live in a country with a famously restrictive gun law, and despite that, if you really want to own a gun, you can, but you have to put some effort.

People who want to own a gun must pass some psychological, health (sight, mostly) and knowledge test. Your criminal record is investigated by the police. Those who want a handgun must be members of a shooting sport club. Those who want a rifle, shotgun or carbine must have a hunting license.

The limit per person is of five rifles and twelve shotguns and carbines (no limits to handguns). No more of 200 rifle cartridge per year. Authomatic rifles' magazines can't hold more than two cartidges, but that limit doesn't apply to shotguns, carbines, bolt action, pump action or lever action rifles. Military models aren't allowed.

You must own a special safe for the weapons to avoid children taking them, and there are strict rules about how they are to be transported from home to the place where you are to use them.

If somebody wants a weapon for a legitimate purpose, be it hunting or sport, well, you can have the gun. If you want it for self-defense, well, being a member of a sport club at least guarantees that somebody will teach you to use it and you won't kill somebody (or yourself) by accident. And it's unlikely that somebody can snap, find a gun and start a killing spree unless that person already owned a gun and managed to fool the psychological tests.

And before somebody asks, I don't have a gun, but I know many people who own hunting guns.

[IamMe90]

About gun control, I live in a country with a famously restrictive gun law, and despite that, if you really want to own a gun, you can, but you have to put some effort.

People who want to own a gun must pass some psychological, health (sight, mostly) and knowledge test. Your criminal record is investigated by the police. Those who want a handgun must be members of a shooting sport club. Those who want a rifle, shotgun or carbine must have a hunting license.

The limit per person is of five rifles and twelve shotguns and carbines (no limits to handguns). No more of 200 rifle cartridge per year. Authomatic rifles' magazines can't hold more than two cartidges, but that limit doesn't apply to shotguns, carbines, bolt action, pump action or lever action rifles. Military models aren't allowed.

You must own a special safe for the weapons to avoid children taking them, and there are strict rules about how they are to be transported from home to the place where you are to use them.

If somebody wants a weapon for a legitimate purpose, be it hunting or sport, well, you can have the gun. If you want it for self-defense, well, being a member of a sport club at least guarantees that somebody will teach you to use it and you won't kill somebody (or yourself) by accident. And it's unlikely that somebody can snap, find a gun and start a killing spree unless that person already owned a gun and managed to fool the psychological tests.

And before somebody asks, I don't have a gun, but I know many people who own hunting guns.

Not trying to sound rude, but what are you trying to say about these restrictions? I mean, do they work?

[Ser Lepus]

Not trying to sound rude, but what are you trying to say about these restrictions? I mean, do they work?

I don't mean to say anything. Just to tell what really means to live in a country with restrictive gun laws. I got the impression many people at US think that gun control laws would mean no guns at all.

There is little gun-related crime here. Restrictive laws help, but it could be a cultural thing too; few people want to own a handgun and few people can afford big game hunting so there aren't too many rifles either.