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

[Hwilli1647545487]

Bro, it only counts if it was done with guns.

 

Guns ARE the problem, not people. Hence why we only want to talk about GUN violence.

[Geeto67]

Fun graphic.

 

 

Let's take guns out of the equation though and just look at intentional homicide rate.

 

In that case the US falls down to #111. So 110 countries with a higher homicide rate.

 

How can that be possible without them having all the evil guns though?? :no:

 

 

I think you just proved his point - in the US it's way more convenient to use a gun than not to hence more gun related violence.

[Mojoe]

I can appreciate your point of view, o0n8. I just don't share the same outlook.

 

His gun was purchased legally at a store, from the report I read. Again, I don't see this getting around HIPPA. Until medical reasons can be updated for a person to not be able to buy a gun, the most realistic improvement is the speed at which information is put on the list.

 

As for the graph above. There are dozens of countries ahead of the US in gun related deaths. If that graph wants to define the "developed world", I would like to see what countries aren't in that category.

[o0n8]

Fun graphic.

 

 

Let's take guns out of the equation though and just look at intentional homicide rate.

 

In that case the US falls down to #111. So 110 countries with a higher homicide rate.

 

How can that be possible without them having all the evil guns though?? :no:

 

Thanks! or I guess I should thank the Washington Post and Google really. You missed the part about developed countries and see below.

Bro, it only counts if it was done with guns.

 

Guns ARE the problem, not people. Hence why we only want to talk about GUN violence.

I don't think you really read my post. And since we have been mostly discussing guns and gun violence with a little mental health dabbled in, yeah, The graph is about gun violence.

 

I never said the people weren't at fault, so I' not sure where you're going with that. They are at fault, the gun doesn't magically operate itself. If you make the gun harder to put in that person's hand, you might be able to change that graph in the future.

[RyM3rC]

I think you just proved his point - in the US it's way more convenient to use a gun than not to hence more gun related violence.

 

Nah, it's WAY easier to use a car. And if you get caught, you do WAY less jail time too.

[Hwilli1647545487]

Thanks! or I guess I should thank the Washington Post and Google really. You missed the part about developed countries and see below.

 

I don't think you really read my post. And since we have been mostly discussing guns and gun violence with a little mental health dabbled in, yeah, The graph is about gun violence.

 

I never said the people weren't at fault, so I' not sure where you're going with that. They are at fault, the gun doesn't magically operate itself. If you make the gun harder to put in that person's hand, you might be able to change that graph in the future.

 

 

My point is what problem are you trying to solve? The violence or the tool that is being used to perpetuate that violence.

 

Be honest with yourself. What is your goal?

 

If we had that magic Tom Cruise device that could have predicted and prevented this man from getting a firearm. Would that have prevented him from committing this crime?

 

What do you care most about? That this man killed these people, or how he did it?

[2highpsi]

I think you just proved his point - in the US it's way more convenient to use a gun than not to hence more gun related violence.

 

So we really don't care about people dying... we just want to make sure it's not caused by a firearm.

 

Check.

[TTQ B4U]

This guy was told to seek mental help in a court document when he sued for wrongful termination and discrimination. To me that's an automatic red flag. I haven't researched if he bought his stuff at a store or from a private individual.

 

Bought from a store through all the proper means and checks.

 

I would go even further to have guns registered and user have permits just like you have to have a title for a car and a license to legally operate it.

 

why. would do zero good at preventing crimes. guns aren't even the problem either here either. People with no licensees get behind the wheel every day.

 

Then really the biggest issue would be private sales. Obviously people will still do things illegally and always will. But when the "War on Drugs" is over (or lessened when Marijuana is legal), those officers need something to do.

 

Again, try and keep me from buying a gun with no paper trail. Regulation isn't going to work just as you have noted the war on drugs isn't working either.

 

2nd amendment is a little out dated anyway, no one is going to form a militia and take over or protect the Government. Sure they can try a military coup but we all know it's not going to end well for them.

 

let's start a separate thread on this one. please move to the kitchen. I'll meet you there.

 

I would go even further to have guns registered and user have permits just like you have to have a title for a car and a license to legally operate it.

 

already noted it won't work nor do any good.

I'm not naive, this will never stop all gun violence but it could deter it.

 

How will it effectively deter it? Is it the use of a gun you want to see ended? In properly trained hands, he could have used a blade more effectively faster and with less noise and taken all three of them out vs. what he did with a gun.

 

I don't own a gun, never felt the need to own one. I'm not scared of the neighborhood I live or work in. I guess I just don't see the benefit to owning one. I've shot guns and it was fun to do target practice and would like to eventually take one of your classes when life permits. I think that would be a fun experience. But I don't ever see the need to have one handy. If I get shot by some crazy person, sucks for me. I highly doubt having a gun myself would prevent that.

 

I would agree most with your last two statements.

 

Maybe I'm just the only one getting tired of seeing it on the news every week and would like to see something change.

 

Turn off the news. Worse stuff happens everyday here and all over the world. You just don't know about it.

 

That and seeing people saying "they shoulda had a gun too". That's just fucking ridiculous.

 

Really? What's the one thing you don't often here about in situations like this shooting or any workplace shooting that would change your view? Most people like you said, don't have a gun.

 

If you honestly think having someone who knows how to use one and is carrying wouldn't make a difference then you sir are being ridiculous. go into any jewelry store in the mall and ask yourself why they usually have armed security. In 1991 my sisters friend Sonny was on duty a guard there and shot and killed a guy in Northland mall after he tried to rob a jeweler there.

[Hwilli1647545487]

"

2nd amendment is a little out dated anyway, no one is going to form a militia and take over or protect the Government. Sure they can try a military coup but we all know it's not going to end well for them.

 

let's start a separate thread on this one. please move to the kitchen. I'll meet you there."

 

Oh shit I didnt even see this one.....

[TTQ B4U]

I think you just proved his point - in the US it's way more convenient to use a gun than not to hence more gun related violence.

 

but a guns aren't not the problem, it's the people using them and this story is a case in point where the court acknowledged the dude needed help in their own documents but our system is set up that even knowing that we still allow him to buy a gun just as you or I would. Start by fixing that before you try and hurt those of us who aren't nut jobs. it's right up there with the guy who has 9 DUI's and is likely driving to buy beer right now.

 

In terms of convenience, and news worthiness, explosive are a much more effective means to do a mass killing. next up....apply an extra Tax on fertilizer and ban all potential bomb making components.

[Geeto67]

So we really don't care about people dying... we just want to make sure it's not caused by a firearm.

 

Check.

 

I don't think anybody said that, nor do I think that is how anybody intended it to be read. But good for you for putting the extra dash of crazy this thread needed.

[Geeto67]

but a guns aren't not the problem, it's the people using them and this story is a case in point where the court acknowledged the dude needed help in their own documents but our system is set up that even knowing that we still allow him to buy a gun just as you or I would. Start by fixing that before you try and hurt those of us who aren't nut jobs. it's right up there with the guy who has 9 DUI's and is likely driving to buy beer right now.

 

In terms of convenience, and news worthiness, explosive are a much more effective means to do a mass killing. next up....apply an extra Tax on fertilizer and ban all potential bomb making components.

 

I don't think anybody in this discussion will disagree with the premise that the people using them are the problem, the question isn't whether a gun is inherently dangerous, it is how to regulate access to a specific group of people.

 

The moment you take the concept of regulating access to the item in question off the table you are no longer committed to a solution for the existing problem we are trying to solve. A real solution to this issue is probably going to take a mixture of regulation of behavior and regulation restricting access and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

 

I take personal exception to people who talk about "separating the gun from the person" because 1) it presupposes whatever legitimate right you have to use is as important if not more than protecting people from being shot to death, 2) it requires both elements to commit this specific act, you can't regulate one side to this equation to make up for the shortcomings on the other side. but that position is basically "leave my gun alone and fix the other side" which is counter productive.

[o0n8]

I can appreciate your point of view, o0n8. I just don't share the same outlook.

 

His gun was purchased legally at a store, from the report I read. Again, I don't see this getting around HIPPA. Until medical reasons can be updated for a person to not be able to buy a gun, the most realistic improvement is the speed at which information is put on the list.

 

As for the graph above. There are dozens of countries ahead of the US in gun related deaths. If that graph wants to define the "developed world", I would like to see what countries aren't in that category.

Thank you. I respect yours as well.

 

There's always going to be some form of government hold another part of government back.

 

Developed according to http://www.oecd.org/ excluding Mexico. Which if they reported numbers could probably be #1

My point is what problem are you trying to solve? The violence or the tool that is being used to perpetuate that violence.

 

Be honest with yourself. What is your goal?

Improve the current system and make gun access harder with a paper trail.

If we had that magic Tom Cruise device that could have predicted and prevented this man from getting a firearm. Would that have prevented him from committing this crime?

Making it harder for him to get a gun might have, but let's be realistic, he was a crazy fucker and even if he had to use a knife, at some point at least one of the two would have likely been murdered

What do you care most about? That this man killed these people, or how he did it?

The killings.

Bought from a store through all the proper means and checks.

 

then the proper means and checks need reviewed because they're not effective.

 

why. would do zero good at preventing crimes. guns aren't even the problem either here either. People with no licensees get behind the wheel every day.

Paper trail and being held accountable. When people get caught with out a license they get in trouble.

 

Again, try and keep me from buying a gun with no paper trail. Regulation isn't going to work just as you have noted the war on drugs isn't working either.

If it's the law and you're a law abiding citizen, you would. If not, see above.

 

 

let's start a separate thread on this one. please move to the kitchen. I'll meet you there.

I'll read the thread. maybe there's a ratification or clarification in the amendment I missed when reading it.

 

How will it effectively deter it? Is it the use of a gun you want to see ended? In properly trained hands, he could have used a blade more effectively faster and with less noise and taken all three of them out vs. what he did with a gun.

Harder to get access to guns and ammo. If it's harder to get, it's going to be harder to kill. I highly doubt this man was properly trained with a blade.

 

 

I would agree most with your last two statements.

 

Thanks

 

Turn off the news. Worse stuff happens everyday here and all over the world. You just don't know about it.

I like to be informed of the world I live in.

 

 

Really? What's the one thing you don't often here about in situations like this shooting or any workplace shooting that would change your view? Most people like you said, don't have a gun.

If it's harder for the person to get a gun, he might not shoot up the work place.

If you honestly think having someone who knows how to use one and is carrying wouldn't make a difference then you sir are being ridiculous. go into any jewelry store in the mall and ask yourself why they usually have armed security. In 1991 my sisters friend Sonny was on duty a guard there and shot and killed a guy in Northland mall after he tried to rob a jeweler there.

I guess I missed the part where I said no one should have a gun ever. Because that is exactly what I haven't said. An armed guard at a mall that has been trained to use his weapon, that's exactly who I want to have a gun.

 

 

I think the fundamental difference here is that I'm concerned with ways we can prevent these situations while others are more concerned with how to react during them. If you're answer is more guns, you fall in the later.

 

so some bullet points on my stance so you guys can be clear.

- I'm all for you owning a gun, as long as you're not crazy as deemed by a professional or a felon. I just don't see the need for myself.

 

- I would 100% be behind you have to have a permit to own one. You know, be educated and informed on how to use it.

 

- I would like to see a paper trail on guns similar to titles for vehicles. Hold the registered owner responsible.

[TTQ B4U]

regulation restricting access and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

 

regulation and restricting access? seriously....has that stopped underage drinking? it's not going to stop people who want to use a firearm to kill you or people in a theater. again, even if you make it "more difficult" there are far better ways already. Personally, I'd rather deal with a single guy with an AR 15 coming at me in a theater vs him walking in and just blowing the place up.

 

I take personal exception to people who talk about "separating the gun from the person" because 1) it presupposes whatever legitimate right you have to use is as important if not more than protecting people from being shot to death,

 

Not at all. I take exception that we continually overlook fixing the real problems in society and blame instances on guns and live in fear. Stop living in fear of the bad guy. Face your fears, control your life and face the boogie man already. to anyone who doesn't want to own a gun, then don't. I applaud you for knowing where you stand. But for those of us that do and use them and are law abiding people, then have respect for that just the same.

 

I don't walk around fearing getting shot in a theater or that a road rager is going to kill my wife. We have rights and will protect ourselves. Now it's time for society to step up. I'm sorry but we don't need to gov't to come into our lives any deeper; we need society to discipline themselves.

[TTQ B4U]

Improve the current system and make gun access harder with a paper trail.

 

Great. About as effective as trying to stop your car from getting wet in a thunderstorm with a single umbrella. However, such a move would garner some liberal votes but effectively do nothing.

 

Making it harder for him to get a gun might have, but let's be realistic, he was a crazy fucker and even if he had to use a knife, at some point at least one of the two would have likely been murdered

 

Again, if your solution isn't effective then it's not really a solution is it? He would still get a gun and if guns were 100% inaccessible, there would be yet another way. In the mean time your means just stepped on the toes of millions of unintended people.

 

then the proper means and checks need reviewed because they're not effective Paper trail and being held accountable. When people get caught with out a license they get in trouble.

 

I think it's already been proven than gang members who kill, murders who rape and kill and insane gun toting freaks shooting up theaters all have something in common.....they don't fear the repercussions. So who is left that's effectively being targeted?

 

Harder to get access to guns and ammo. If it's harder to get, it's going to be harder to kill. I highly doubt this man was properly trained with a blade.

 

Really? How’s that theory worked for keeping underage kids from smoking, drinking, doing drugs? How’s that worked thus far on keeping guns out of the hands of felons? My point about being versed with a blade was more hypothetical. Role play your solution, guns are now very difficult to near impossible to get for everyone but the cops and military. How do you think he would have killed those two? What would a theater shooter do instead? Hint….it won’t matter nor end well.

 

If it's harder for the person to get a gun, he might not shoot up the work place.

 

You continue to make things harder and use words like “might not” but you never bring a full solution but do a great job of stomping on the rights of many others. Again, Role play your solution, guns are now very difficult to near impossible to get for everyone but the cops and military. How would a pissed off ex employee kill people at his former place of employment? You still haven’t fixed the end result one bit.

 

I guess I missed the part where I said no one should have a gun ever. Because that is exactly what I haven't said. An armed guard at a mall that has been trained to use his weapon, that's exactly who I want to have a gun.

 

Lots of people here on this board who aren’t armed guards have been trained to use a gun. Making our lives more difficult around guns isn’t the solution. You also haven’t effectively solved the intended problem.

 

I think the fundamental difference here is that I'm concerned with ways we can prevent these situations while others are more concerned with how to react during them. If you're answer is more guns, you fall in the later.

 

I disagree. I think everyone here is fundamentally focused on ways to prevent these situations. This is like the 1,347th conversation on this topic since I’ve been signed up. The latter part of your statement isn’t incorrect but the old saying of who do you call when a bad guy with a gun breaks down your door applies here. I trust you know the rest of that saying…

 

So you are clear on my stance, regarding your points noted: I agree and think that a gun safety course should be required for anyone once they turn 18. I might even go so far as to say that everyone should be trained on how to use a handgun and perhaps a long gun too. Might I suggest a required service in the military or is that too much? Anyway…..yes, be trained and have a certificate that such training and handling has been completed. I’m not for a gun registry though.

 

Paper trails are useless. Again, won’t stop hardly anyone who is really out to kill. Tons of people drive cars without a registration, license, etc. Someone out to kill another human being isn’t going to care much about consequences. If I do and am in that bucket, I’m going to use another means but achieve the same end.

[o0n8]

I know my ideas are not perfect and I haven't done much research on the gun control so I don't know the possibility or plausibility of them. I do say "might" or "may" a lot because I just don't know, but I'm willing to give it a shot. But it's my .02 cents and I threw it out here knowing it wouldn't be welcomed with open arms on a generally Republican Gun loving forum. But I honestly have not seen any other ideas thrown out for prevention of the situation. I do appreciate and respect your counterpoints as it has got me thinking more about the topic.

 

With that being said, This is something that's not 100% preventable either. I don't think there's one single solution and no solution is going to work overnight. The status quo isn't working and that's what I'm most unhappy about. I don't think the answer is more guns. Banning all guns is not answer either. But there's got to be a middle somewhere that can reduce the number of mass shootings. Single or even double murders will still happen but the numbers may go down some. Only one way to really find out.

 

As far as underage kids, do you want them to have easy access to smoking and drinking? Parents can and have been held accountable for that.

 

and the role playing, crazy people are going to be crazy, No way around it. People will murder, but the body count probably won't be as high.

 

Don't know the old saying but it's probably the name of gun given the conversation.

 

I don't think you should be required to take a gun safety course just because you're 18. You're not forced to take driver's ed when your 16. Talk about taking away freedom of choice. Even though there's a lot of high school graduates that could use the discipline and wake up call from being forced to be in the military, (a lot of that would be cause the parents failed them) I would give up the Right to Bear Arms before I would force that on them.

 

Remember when 1 guy had a shoe bomb and now we all have to take our shoes off at the airport? Not every "solution" is convenient. You can argue some solutions are not necessary, but at this point, just about anything is better than the status quo.

[TTQ B4U]

I honestly have not seen any other ideas thrown out for prevention of the situation.

 

Prevention of what situation? I ask because the reality is you aren't going to stop murders, even you stated that. They are part of life/society. That solution is a rabbit hole that our society can't successfully navigate.

 

It sounds horrible but I tend to say what's on my mind; the upside is of all the murders that happen in the US everyday most aren't murders of good productive people contributing real value to the society. Many are just common drug dealers and trash that is taking care of itself. I don't lose sleep over that. What pisses me off is when a turd on parole goes after the kid working at dairy mart or the old lady living alone. They should be put down plain and simple no fucks given. Send his family flowers and a card. Like you said, they prolly won't be in the picture or care.

 

The status quo isn't working and that's what I'm most unhappy about. I don't think the answer is more guns. Banning all guns is not answer either. But there's got to be a middle somewhere that can reduce the number of mass shootings.

One of the key components in that abyss of a rabbit hole I mentioned earlier is education and core family values. Together those two points combined with forcing people to be accountable for themselves would go a long way to fixing this country. That's for another thread.

 

In terms of guns, you're right in banning or restricting or making life with guns more difficult for the good-guys is not the answer. A big part of the answer is plain and simple we just as a society don't want to face it and that is to quit coddling the criminal muck that we let roam our streets. We wouldn't tollerate a rabid dog or a terrorist living among us yet we fight for the bad guys lives. We know who the bad guys are and many are repeaters are and but we're in a circle jerk of trying to rehabilitate rapists and murders, etc.

 

Anyway, in terms of HIPAA, we need to realize that if someone is fucked in the head, has mental issues, etc. that is important to know and we shouldn't jeapordize the safety of the sane to protect the privacy of the insane. Again, we worry too much about that shit. It's like we overthink it all.

 

As far as underage kids, do you want them to have easy access to smoking and drinking? Parents can and have been held accountable for that.

No to your first part but don't kid yourself, kids already have what can be considered easy access to them. I agree with your second part. It's the parenting and those family values I mentioned earlier that are key to dealing with a lot of these issues. Joe made a great post about it in another thread just yesterday.

 

Don't know the old saying but it's probably the name of gun given the conversation.

no...you call a good guy with a gun....aka the police. So in a sense, yes, more guns do protect people. Do you think the Colorado shooter would have killed as many as he did if 1 or 2 civilians were armed and able to fend him off or take him down? Think about how many veterans and retired LEO's we have out there in society. Chances are there's one in just about every movie theater out there right now. Those are some good odds. Perhaps society will rethink gun-free zones.

 

I don't think you should be required to take a gun safety course just because you're 18. You're not forced to take driver's ed when your 16. Talk about taking away freedom of choice.

Kids are forced to have vaccinations which prevent the spread of disease before going to school. Same difference here. This problem is a disease / epidemic in our society.

 

Education is key. Seems the vast majority of outspoken people in favor of gun controls and are often very vocal probably have never held a gun let along been trained on how and when to use one. Go figure. If you're thinking I mean how to simply load and shoot, you're missing about 10 of the 12 hours of Joe's CHL course and that's just on a single day in a basic CHL course. Here in Ohio to drive a car you must take 24 classroom hrs and spend 8hrs behind the wheel. Something is wrong when you can go buy a gun and not have had any mandatory training.

 

Even though there's a lot of high school graduates that could use the discipline and wake up call from being forced to be in the military, (a lot of that would be cause the parents failed them) I would give up the Right to Bear Arms before I would force that on them.

Topic/Thread #3 we could create here. I stand by my belief and this is coming from me who hasn't served but gladly would have. Both my brothers and father and two uncles all did and it absolutely went a long way for them.

 

Remember when 1 guy had a shoe bomb and now we all have to take our shoes off at the airport? Not every "solution" is convenient. You can argue some solutions are not necessary, but at this point, just about anything is better than the status quo.

Don't even get me started in the TSA. They help but by no means make me feel safe. Edited August 28, 2015 by TTQ B4U

[Bigbird]

TL;DR for this page?

[Farkas]

TL;DR for this page?

 

bunch of gays sissy fighting.

[TTQ B4U]

TL;DR for this page?

 

Gun control thread in kitchen. Go bitch and let off some steam there.

[wagner]

Nah, it's WAY easier to use a car. And if you get caught, you do WAY less jail time too.

 

Tell me about it, I have to visit two people's graves that were killed by someone who was drunk behind the wheel, but their deaths don't deserve any type of control I guess?

 

I know there are drunk driving laws, but the guy who killed my uncle had been popped for MULTIPLE DUIs, had no licence, still drove, and still killed.

[DKilbourne]

Tell me about it, I have to visit two people's graves that were killed by someone who was drunk behind the wheel, but their deaths don't deserve any type of control I guess?

 

I know there are drunk driving laws, but the guy who killed my uncle had been popped for MULTIPLE DUIs, had no licence, still drove, and still killed.

 

That makes me want to puke. Too much money in tax dollars from booze to have more harsh consequences.