Jump to content

Cameraman/Newscaster shot and killed on live: man hunt over-shooter dead


mrs.cos

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to say...I AM NOT A TRUMP SUPPORTER...but I thumped my chest when I read that he is trying to carry the message that this tragedy is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Spot on, in my opinion...

 

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-reacts-to-wdbj-shooting-this-isnt-a-gun-problem-this-is-a-mental-problem-video/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say...I AM NOT A TRUMP SUPPORTER...but I thumped my chest when I read that he is trying to carry the message that this tragedy is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Spot on, in my opinion...

 

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-reacts-to-wdbj-shooting-this-isnt-a-gun-problem-this-is-a-mental-problem-video/

 

 

Agree.

 

http://m9.i.pbase.com/g9/23/906523/3/160962219.GqTF0Ihe.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell is this on a picture of Morgan Freeman?

 

don't know...not my creation. I think the irony is people used his image because he has narrated some nature shows. it also is likely circulating because his face and name garner recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because its easy to blame the tool rather than the problems, makes me sick.

 

no it's a restriction and use issue. If the current population restrictions covered under gun control isn't addressing these kinds of issues then revise the restrictions to exclude that population. if you are worried that the new restrictions are going to exclude you then maybe you should own a gun in the first place. If you don't see the restrictions as limiting access to the tool (exactly the thing you are complaining about) based on the criteria of the owner then you miss the point of regulatory control entirely.

 

 

This was a horrific tragedy. it is unique in that it was filmed and aired to the general public via TV and Social media. But it is by no means something that is rare in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it's a restriction and use issue. If the current population restrictions covered under gun control isn't addressing these kinds of issues then revise the restrictions to exclude that population. if you are worried that the new restrictions are going to exclude you then maybe you should own a gun in the first place. If you don't see the restrictions as limiting access to the tool (exactly the thing you are complaining about) based on the criteria of the owner then you miss the point of regulatory control entirely.

 

 

This was a horrific tragedy. it is unique in that it was filmed and aired to the general public via TV and Social media. But it is by no means something that is rare in this country.

 

 

I need to ask you a serious question. When you post on here, do you legitimatley believe what you are writing, or do you pick the opposite side just to practice your debating skills?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to ask you a serious question. When you post on here, do you legitimatley believe what you are writing, or do you pick the opposite side just to practice your debating skills?

 

it may be an unpopular opinion around here but restrictions on access are not restrictions on the tool but on people's use of the tool. If you want to say this is a mental health issue and a stupid people issue then argue restrictions to access that are designed to limit access to certain populations are "blaming the tool" then I don't know what to tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it's a restriction and use issue. If the current population restrictions covered under gun control isn't addressing these kinds of issues then revise the restrictions to exclude that population. if you are worried that the new restrictions are going to exclude you then maybe you should own a gun in the first place. If you don't see the restrictions as limiting access to the tool (exactly the thing you are complaining about) based on the criteria of the owner then you miss the point of regulatory control entirely.

 

 

This was a horrific tragedy. it is unique in that it was filmed and aired to the general public via TV and Social media. But it is by no means something that is rare in this country.

 

So what happens if he used a knife to kill them on live TV? What is it then? What if he used a car to run them down, or maybe a stolen bus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it's a restriction and use issue. If the current population restrictions covered under gun control isn't addressing these kinds of issues then revise the restrictions to exclude that population. if you are worried that the new restrictions are going to exclude you then maybe you should own a gun in the first place.

 

I agree with your last point but the first point if you're looking to "strengthen" gun laws, I don't agree with. Not unless you can assure everyone that you can fix stupid people or prevent bad guys like him from getting a gun period. You can't really do either so what's the point?

 

If I'm mentally ill on meds, etc. and I want to get a gun, no law that restricts access is going to stop me. So if it's not going to work, then why do it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it may be an unpopular opinion around here but restrictions on access are not restrictions on the tool but on people's use of the tool. If you want to say this is a mental health issue and a stupid people issue then argue restrictions to access that are designed to limit access to certain populations are "blaming the tool" then I don't know what to tell you.

 

This does not answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your last point but the first point if you're looking to "strengthen" gun laws, I don't agree with. Not unless you can assure everyone that you can fix stupid people or prevent bad guys like him from getting a gun period. You can't really do either so what's the point?

 

If I'm mentally ill on meds, etc. and I want to get a gun, no law that restricts access is going to stop me. So if it's not going to work, then why do it...

 

There are a lot of people in this world that should not own a gun, knife, car, or some kitchen gadgets, that is a fact.

 

I'm all for some smart gun reform and correct enforcment of current laws.

 

The problem is that the elected idiots can't figure this out and the narrow mindset of political views will keep this from happening.

 

Until then, the larger problems will keep on feeding into this, blame will be passed, and supid will keep winning.

 

What maked me even more angry are the people who die in other preventable ways, but their deaths and family's plights are ignored because they are not high enough on the political food chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm mentally ill on meds, etc. and I want to get a gun, no law that restricts access is going to stop me. So if it's not going to work, then why do it...

 

no there is a way to make that much harder, but it affects a lot of other people as well and you don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of people in this world that should not own a gun, knife, car, or some kitchen gadgets, that is a fact.

 

I'm all for some smart gun reform and correct enforcment of current laws.

 

The problem is that the elected idiots can't figure this out and the narrow mindset of political views will keep this from happening.

 

Until then, the larger problems will keep on feeding into this, blame will be passed, and supid will keep winning.

 

What maked me even more angry are the people who die in other preventable ways, but their deaths and family's plights are ignored because they are not high enough on the political food chain.

 

my point is you can't separate the tool from the user when discussing this issue. I don't see discussions regarding gun control as "blaming the tool" so much as asking the question "at what point does the interest in protecting people from gun violence outweigh the counter point of people's 'right to legitimate use?'". At this point I don't know if your version of "smart gun reform" can exist because of the sheer number of units that exist in this country. It's interesting for sure.

 

I am not sure what other preventable ways you are referring to because all the major ones are accounted in most political agendas. Accident safety, health care, employment rights, etc...And if they aren't at a national level there are efforts going on at the state level. The thing that concerns me is that the US doesn't even collect data on this - it's all private industry data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my point is you can't separate the tool from the user when discussing this issue. I don't see discussions regarding gun control as "blaming the tool" so much as asking the question "at what point does the interest in protecting people from gun violence outweigh the counter point of people's 'right to legitimate use?'". At this point I don't know if your version of "smart gun reform" can exist because of the sheer number of units that exist in this country. It's interesting for sure.

 

I am not sure what other preventable ways you are referring to because all the major ones are accounted in most political agendas. Accident safety, health care, employment rights, etc...And if they aren't at a national level there are efforts going on at the state level. The thing that concerns me is that the US doesn't even collect data on this - it's all private industry data.

 

You still have not answered my question. I've asked it twice now.

 

Do you actually side with the arguments you make, or are you just stirring shit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no there is a way to make that much harder

 

Making something more difficult while not fixing the problem is simply making something more difficult. It comes no where near close to a valuable fix.

 

but it affects a lot of other people as well and you don't like it.

 

See my point above. I don't like investing time, money and other resources into things that don't produce measurable results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have not answered my question. I've asked it twice now.

 

Do you actually side with the arguments you make, or are you just stirring shit?

 

and you are going to keep asking. I don't find your inquiry relevant to this conversation and am therefore ignoring it.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see discussions regarding gun control as "blaming the tool" so much as asking the question "at what point does the interest in protecting people from gun violence outweigh the counter point of people's 'right to legitimate use?'"

 

You don't because such talk won't produce the political talking points that continue to spur on the BS of the liberal media. In the end, making things more difficult without producing results is a waste of resources and interfering with the rights to legitimate users to not effectively protect the few is not the solution.

 

The real problem is that our legal system is fucked up and protects those that are a menace to society as much if not more than those that are law abiding productive and contributing members of society. Why the fuck we let rapists, murderers, and other wastes of breathable air out of jail or continue to live is a moral argument that our society is afraid to face or the liberals will argue until they are the next victim. We can eliminate many of the repeat offenders in this world, we just choose not to for one reason or another. With that we accept what happens. But I'm off topic.

 

In the case of this loon, he died trying to play the racism victim card to defend his actions. He was clearly a nut job and you don't fix it by wasting resources on trying to prevent him from doing his intended deed by going after the hardware, you go after him and others like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making something more difficult while not fixing the problem is simply making something more difficult. It comes no where near close to a valuable fix.

 

depends on how you approach it. making access more difficult overall would produce a result, but does it produce the result we want? who knows?

 

See my point above. I don't like investing time, money and other resources into things that don't produce measurable results.

 

Measurable results are kind of a red herring in this case because we don't have objective government sponsored measurable statistics to begin with. It's all private. The NRA made sure of that. Can't fix a problem when you don't know how big it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you are going to keep asking. I don't find your inquiry relevant to this conversation and am therefore ignoring it.

 

Do you think he asked a question he didn't already know the answer to? Do you? Just say both as we all know that's the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think he asked a question he didn't already know the answer to? Do you? Just say both as we all know that's the reality.

 

of course not.

 

We really need a way to like individual posts that doesn't require a reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...