virginia reporter/tv man killed live on air

• Heretic

  

  SportsAndLady;1747299 wrote:I watched the Live TV shot. Went to watch the video from the shooters POV and simply couldn't press play. Nope.

  Neither could I. Just watching the live TV shot was bad enough because when the cameraman took that long panning shot, I just knew shit was going to happen at any second, so it was like my heart was in my throat for 30 seconds or so.
• Heretic

  

  SnotBubbles;1747345 wrote:For one, how does no one notice a man walking 3' away from them (for like 20 seconds), never mind the fact he has a gun pointed at you.
  
  For two, if you got hit with 3-4 hollow point bullets, you'd drop instantly...not run away.
  
  I don't know. Maybe it's the conspiracy theorists rubbing off on me...but this is the first one I can honestly say after watching that I felt looked staged.

  I totes agree. I've felt all along that the two victims were in it together with the murderer to make this weird suicide-murder cult dealie. And from reading that both victims seemed to have happy personal lives, including being in relationships and stuff, it becomes even more logical!
  
  Great deducting, bro!
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  SnotBubbles;1747345 wrote:For one, how does no one notice a man walking 3' away from them (for like 20 seconds), never mind the fact he has a gun pointed at you.
  
  For two, if you got hit with 3-4 hollow point bullets, you'd drop instantly...not run away.
  
  I don't know. Maybe it's the conspiracy theorists rubbing off on me...but this is the first one I can honestly say after watching that I felt looked staged.

  dude...
• sleeper

  

  I guess we will have to wait to see if they find the body.
• Tiernan

  If this country was ever going to do something about gun control it would have been after Sandy Hook when 20 1st graders were mass murdered. Yesterday's shit (while momentarily shocking) doesn't really even get the crazy far left or gun nut far right's panties in a bunch. As a nation we have become numb to this BS and that is sad. We need solutions people...not some street corner Anti Gun activist nor some camo-covered NRA dipshit screaming about "our fore-fathers bearing arms". We as a society have tolerated these mass-shootings and I believe they will continue because we don't have the balls to stop it.
• vdubb96

  

  Tiernan;1747409 wrote:If this country was ever going to do something about gun control it would have been after Sandy Hook when 20 1st graders were mass murdered. Yesterday's shit (while momentarily shocking) doesn't really even get the crazy far left or gun nut far right's panties in a bunch. As a nation we have become numb to this BS and that is sad. We need solutions people...not some street corner Anti Gun activist nor some camo-covered NRA dipshit screaming about "our fore-fathers bearing arms". We as a society have tolerated these mass-shootings and I believe they will continue because we don't have the balls to stop it.

  This for once, This!
• sleeper

  

  Tiernan;1747409 wrote:If this country was ever going to do something about gun control it would have been after Sandy Hook when 20 1st graders were mass murdered. Yesterday's shit (while momentarily shocking) doesn't really even get the crazy far left or gun nut far right's panties in a bunch. As a nation we have become numb to this BS and that is sad. We need solutions people...not some street corner Anti Gun activist nor some camo-covered NRA dipshit screaming about "our fore-fathers bearing arms". We as a society have tolerated these mass-shootings and I believe they will continue because we don't have the balls to stop it.

  I think we are at a loss on how to stop it exactly. Banning guns seems to be the political move but it doesn't make sense in reality.
• j_crazy

  

  sleeper;1747432 wrote:I think we are at a loss on how to stop it exactly. Banning guns seems to be the political move but it doesn't make sense in reality.

  i think your logic is quite backwards. banning guns makes perfect sense, it would be a collosal undertaking to achieve, and logistically it would be a nightmare. It worked in Australia, it worked in the UK, it would work here in time. I'm not saying it will be quick and we'll all like it. lets face facts that some people are straight up cunts and in the event they can't shoot and kill people, they'll stab them, or bomb them, or beat them with a hammer, but 1 **** with a knife is a lot less of a threat than 1 maniacal **** with an AK and hundreds of rounds of ammo.
  
  Politically is the only way banning guns doesn't make sense.
• sleeper

  

  j_crazy;1747434 wrote:i think your logic is quite backwards. banning guns makes perfect sense, it would be a collosal undertaking to achieve, and logistically it would be a nightmare. It worked in Australia, it worked in the UK, it would work here in time. I'm not saying it will be quick and we'll all like it. lets face facts that some people are straight up cunts and in the event they can't shoot and kill people, they'll stab them, or bomb them, or beat them with a hammer, but 1 **** with a knife is a lot less of a threat than 1 maniacal **** with an AK and hundreds of rounds of ammo.
  
  Politically is the only way banning guns doesn't make sense.

  Because the vast majority of gun owners do not commit murder. Cars kill more people than guns ever will but should we ban cars? It makes perfect sense right, just logistically it would be a nightmare and politically impossible.
• queencitybuckeye

  j_crazy;1747434 wrote:i think your logic is quite backwards. banning guns makes perfect sense, it would be a collosal undertaking to achieve, and logistically it would be a nightmare. It worked in Australia, it worked in the UK, it would work here in time. I'm not saying it will be quick and we'll all like it. lets face facts that some people are straight up cunts and in the event they can't shoot and kill people, they'll stab them, or bomb them, or beat them with a hammer, but 1 **** with a knife is a lot less of a threat than 1 maniacal **** with an AK and hundreds of rounds of ammo.
  
  Politically is the only way banning guns doesn't make sense.

  The undertaking is beyond immense. It would require:
  
  1. Repealing the 2nd amendment.
  2. Passing a law making gun ownership and/or possession illegal.
  3. Repealing the 4th amendment (just making guns illegal won't cause anything close to all guns to be turned in).
  4. Repealing or at least making modifications to the 5th amendment for similar reasons.
  5. Repealing or adding an exception to the 10th amendment (most state constitutions convey the right to bear arms).
  
  If perceived or even real safety makes the above worth what you'd be giving up, we'll just have to disagree.
• j_crazy

  

  I don't disagree, but if we want a true end to gun violence, we need to take away the guns. It won't stop violence, but it will stop gun violence. jim jefferies has a bit about this where he talks about how he handles drugs better than most everyone but he understands drugs need to be illegal because society has to play to worst among us. I'll try to find it.
  
  Edit: Found it.
  
  [video=youtube;X0LF4D2eDqk][/video]
• Tiernan

  When I said we don't have the balls to stop it...what I meant is we don't have the balls to make the process of acquiring a gun so damn tough and lengthy the average American with an IQ of <80 can't or won't do it. We completely eliminate the sale of non-hunting ammunition. We establish penalties for "crime with a gun" that are severe, swift and non-negotiable. We offer wide-sweeping Buy Back Your Gun programs funded from the reduction of welfare. We offer rewards for tips on owners with non-registered guns and we prosecute heavily. It can be done BUT we won't do it because America is lazy and we don't have leaders willing to take tough courses of action.
• queencitybuckeye

  Tiernan;1747443 wrote:When I said we don't have the balls to stop it...what I meant is we don't have the balls to make the process of acquiring a gun so damn tough and lengthy the average American with an IQ of <80 can't or won't do it. We completely eliminate the sale of non-hunting ammunition. We establish penalties for "crime with a gun" that are severe, swift and non-negotiable. We offer wide-sweeping Buy Back Your Gun programs funded from the reduction of welfare. We offer rewards for tips on owners with non-registered guns and we prosecute heavily. It can be done BUT we won't do it because America is lazy and we don't have leaders willing to take tough courses of action.

  Ammunition falls under "arms". The 2nd amendment doesn't have a back door.
• MontyBrunswick

  

  j_crazy;1747441 wrote:I don't disagree, but if we want a true end to gun violence, we need to take away the guns.

  Crime doesn't work that way. By your logic, burglaries should have disappeared with the invention of doors and window locks.
  
  If guns were banned, gun violence would just get replaced by other forms of violence. Crazy people will still be crazy and will still turn to drastic means to do whatever it is they feel they have to do.
• j_crazy

  

  MontyBrunswick;1747446 wrote:Crime doesn't work that way. By your logic, burglaries should have disappeared with the invention of doors and window locks.
  
  If guns were banned, gun violence would just get replaced by other forms of violence. Crazy people will still be crazy and will still turn to drastic means to do whatever it is they feel they have to do.

  
  Explain how that isn't exactly what I said.
• MontyBrunswick

  

  j_crazy;1747447 wrote:Explain how that isn't exactly what I said.

  
  Because you're arguing that there'd be a net reduction in overall violence if guns were taken away. I don't think there would be.
  
  In other words, if there were 1000 gun deaths per year and you took away guns, other forms of violent death would likely jump. If that happens all you've done is alienated gun owners who were responsable by banning them
• lhslep134

  

  queencitybuckeye;1747440 wrote: 3. Repealing the 4th amendment (just making guns illegal won't cause anything close to all guns to be turned in).

  Please explain why you think the 4th Amendment would need to be repealed
• queencitybuckeye

  lhslep134;1747450 wrote:Please explain why you think the 4th Amendment would need to be repealed

  Let's say I own a gun. The 2nd amendment is repealed. This in itself causes no action on my part. If the goal is to get all guns out of the country, what happens next?
• j_crazy

  

  MontyBrunswick;1747449 wrote:Because you're arguing that there'd be a net reduction in overall violence if guns were taken away. I don't think there would be.
  
  In other words, if there were 1000 gun deaths per year and you took away guns, other forms of violent death would likely jump. If that happens all you've done is alienated gun owners who were responsable by banning them

  you need reading comprehension training, the portion of my post you quoted said "I don't disagree, but if we want a true end to gun violence, we need to take away the guns."
  
  Even in the part of my post you quoted, I said you'd only end gun violence. But to make matters worse, the very next sentence of my post, which you inexplicably didn't quote says "It won't stop violence, but it will stop gun violence."
  
  Again, explain how you and I aren't saying the same fucking thing.
  
  And on top of that lhslep is right repealing the 2nd amendment is one thing, getting rid of the guns is something else altogether.
• sleeper

  

  Tiernan;1747443 wrote:When I said we don't have the balls to stop it...what I meant is we don't have the balls to make the process of acquiring a gun so damn tough and lengthy the average American with an IQ of <80 can't or won't do it. We completely eliminate the sale of non-hunting ammunition. We establish penalties for "crime with a gun" that are severe, swift and non-negotiable. We offer wide-sweeping Buy Back Your Gun programs funded from the reduction of welfare. We offer rewards for tips on owners with non-registered guns and we prosecute heavily. It can be done BUT we won't do it because America is lazy and we don't have leaders willing to take tough courses of action.

  I'll gladly trade higher restrictions on who can buy a gun for higher restrictions on who's allowed to vote. It's called making compromises and that's how politics used to be.
• Mulva

  

  lhslep134;1747450 wrote:Please explain why you think the 4th Amendment would need to be repealed

  Can't speak for QCB, but it seems like if you want all guns gone, then you would need to search everyone whether or not they consented.
  It's not feasible, but a voluntary gun turn-in would not eliminate guns or gun violence.
• lhslep134

  

  queencitybuckeye;1747453 wrote:Let's say I own a gun. The 2nd amendment is repealed. This in itself causes no action on my part. If the goal is to get all guns out of the country, what happens next?

  Why are you answering my question with a question that doesn't come close to answering mine? Explain why the 4th amendment would need to be repealed.
• lhslep134

  

  Mulva;1747457 wrote:Can't speak for QCB, but it seems like if you want all guns gone, then you would need to search everyone whether or not they consented.

  
  1) That's an absurd conclusion
  2) that doesn't answer why the 4th Amendment would need to be repealed
  
  
  Bombs are illegal but they're not searching everyone to see if they have bombs
• MontyBrunswick

  

  Mulva;1747457 wrote:Can't speak for QCB, but it seems like if you want all guns gone, then you would need to search everyone whether or not they consented.
  It's not feasible, but a voluntary gun turn-in would not eliminate guns or gun violence.

  Yes it would, ask j_crazy LOL
• queencitybuckeye

  Mulva;1747457 wrote:Can't speak for QCB, but it seems like if you want all guns gone, then you would need to search everyone whether or not they consented.
  It's not feasible, but a voluntary gun turn-in would not eliminate guns or gun violence.

  If you want all guns gone, you basically have to tear up a nice big chunk of the Bill of Rights. Talk about a cure far worse than the disease.