On the Nature of Things | Forum

Folks,

Here is a tragic shooting which, whilst an obvious public atrocity, is not Al Qaeda, IS, or IRA. This is two journalists who were gunned down while shooting a news story in the quiet resort of Swiss Mountain Lake, Virginia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34062118

My wife and I were watching this on TV and my wife said “What's so special about shootings in the US; they happen all the time.” I replied, “Well this was two journalists gunned down while broadcasting live on the TV.” She said, “Oh!”

Indeed. What can we say to such an event?

Alex.

That support for gun Rights will continue to rise. Thanks for doing your part.

Looks like our first gay TV shooter. Seems like we'll have to look at gay iconography like we did southern flags.

A gay tv reporter who self identifies as black and has filed racial grievances. Man, a model of progressivism down to the Ts. Narrative disruption.

Any odds on who he voted for President?

This is the 2nd liberal self identifying black shooter we've had, if you remember Chris Dorner. We are seeing a trend here. We need to analyze why liberalism produces these results.

So, if a white conservative murdered a reporter on air for being liberal, the response would be... probably similar to a rich white Dentist shooting a lion.

Compared to a gay self identify black reporter murdering a reporter for being racist.

Why isn't anyone commenting.

Man, is the media burying who this shooter is. Textbook progressive, buried in a tomb silence. I can't imagine how the left could be more morally and intellectually bankrupt.

manolo wrote:Folks,

Here is a tragic shooting which, whilst an obvious public atrocity, is not Al Qaeda, IS, or IRA. This is two journalists who were gunned down while shooting a news story in the quiet resort of Swiss Mountain Lake, Virginia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34062118

My wife and I were watching this on TV and my wife said “What's so special about shootings in the US; they happen all the time.” I replied, “Well this was two journalists gunned down while broadcasting live on the TV.” She said, “Oh!”

Indeed. What can we say to such an event?

Alex.

Alex,

Slight correction, the location was Smith Mountain Lake. About 45 miles from my house.

Isn't that what he said.

A disturbed psycho kills two journalists and Mr.P. turns it into a lavender storm against liberals.

If they get to do it they have to let other people do it.

Parodite wrote:A disturbed psycho kills two journalists and Mr.P. turns it into a lavender storm against liberals.

It's the only way to defend the indefensible:

US has five percent of world's population, but had 31 percent of its public mass shooters from 1966-2012

Nice selection bias.

And what is with the false charges. Where did I defend anything in this thread.

LGx9dWX8RBE

Folks,

My initial reaction to this news is that the young journalists should have been armed. Loaded firearms would have given them a chance. However, I'm now not so sure.

When doing a news story the interviewer will have a microphone in her hand and the camera operator will be in an even worse position if the camera is a double hander. Neither of them would have time to respond with return fire at a quick and determined shooter.

A better measure would be for journalists on location to have armed security with them. Armed security would have time to sweep the scene, whilst the journalists get on with their job. However, there still is a problem if the shooter is known to the news team and particularly if the shooter is a suicide killer, as in this case. A clever shooter might be able to approach the scene innocently, and then suddenly pull out the weapon and plug the victim/s before the security can despatch them.

The point here is that the shooter will always have the advantage of surprise, whereas the victim/s or security team have to react.

A further problem is the variety of weapons available to the shooter. In this case I believe that a handgun was used, but telescopic sighted rifles remove the effectiveness of armed journalists or their security team. From a comfortable distance the shooter with such a rifle has the leisure to select the target, including point of impact, and do the job before the victim/s or their security team can react. There may be some slowness with multiple targets and a bolt action rifle, but an automatic weapon should be effective.

There are some problems above with street security for journalists (and others) but I am sure that the NRA of America will be working hard on solutions.

Alex.

Journalists are more likely to be killed by lightning than gunned down during a live shot. They really don't need to do anything except I am concerned about copycats being inspired by media hysteria.

Maybe the silver lining will be that the media stops sensationalizing these crimes now that they would be the target of copycats.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Journalists are more likely to be killed by lightning than gunned down during a live shot. They really don't need to do anything except I am concerned about copycats being inspired by media hysteria.

Maybe the silver lining will be that the media stops sensationalizing these crimes now that they would be the target of copycats.

Reduction of hype would be both a silver lining and refreshing.

The president of WDBJ7 showed a lot of class in the interviews I watched. At one point he was asked "Why?" He replied (paraphrased) "I have been in the news business for over 30 years. I tell our young reporters we cover two things, what people say and what people do. Trying to discern what they think, and how they feel, falls into the realm of mindreading. It is not reporting."

If the bigots and the crusaders could resist from speculating that "the shooter was representative of a typical American, gun owner, white guy, black guy, liberal, conservative, gay, straight, man, woman, etc. (pick your preferred boogey man)...... then they wouldn't be bigots or crusaders.

People like media hyped drama (example: doomer porn). I think it fulfills an inner psychological need for villains and heroes. Similar to watching a soap opera, or reading an adventure/romance novel or comic book.

Perhaps random, unpredictable, events and actions scare people? Reference Typhoon's current signature.

Bigots and crusaders probably often get paid better than honest reporters because they draw a bigger audience.

"Talk about my preferred boogeyman, cater to my favorite prejudices, so I sleep better at night, and I'll watch your news cast more often."

Simple Minded wrote:
The president of WDBJ7 showed a lot of class in the interviews I watched. At one point he was asked "Why?" He replied (paraphrased) "I have been in the news business for over 30 years. I tell our young reporters we cover two things, what people say and what people do. Trying to discern what they think, and how they feel, falls into the realm of mindreading. It is not reporting."

SM,

Quite so. I think it is much better to stick with the practical matters and solutions to gun crime in the USA. Now, there is a related point on this issue, coming from the Louisiana cinema shooting.

In crowded public areas, such as in a cinema, it is much harder for victims and/or well meaning armed bystanders to effectively use their firearms. In a crowd situation, the initial shooter may trigger other (well meaning) shooters who fail to hit their mark, but by firing will attract the bullets of further well meaning bystanders. Very quickly the initial shooter isn't the only problem as others may be firing at the wrong targets.

This might be called a 'domino effect' as the firing gets out of control, with successive well meaning shooters targeting the wrong people. It may be that in depth firearms training for all citizens could help the situation, but I see the likelihood of errors remaining in the case of a general shooting conflagration.

It may be possible to have a system of checking guns at the door, in the cases of cinemas, bars and clubs, but this approach might fall foul of the NRA legislators. Some people may feel that collateral damage among men, women and children in public places is a price worth paying?

Alex.

PS – In previous discussions we have talked about the effectiveness of knives as opposed to guns. Maybe it would be appropriate for guns to be checked in at the door, but for folks to carry their personal knives readily to hand in order to stay safe and secure on the premises? Even then, though, I think honest mistakes could happen. Also, in the journalist shootings I don't think that knives would have been much use, as the shooter was armed with a handgun and had the advantage of distance.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Nice selection bias.

And what is with the false charges. Where did I defend anything in this thread.

Your false charge: that this gunner is the result of liberalism.

A defense is not a charge, false or no. I did not "defend the indefensible", at all in any way shape or form.

Liberalism being the blame is the unavoidable conclusion based on standards the media and left have used in the past including the recent past where inanimate objects and whole regions of the country were to blame for the actions of one man. Nothing to do with me.

manolo wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:
The president of WDBJ7 showed a lot of class in the interviews I watched. At one point he was asked "Why?" He replied (paraphrased) "I have been in the news business for over 30 years. I tell our young reporters we cover two things, what people say and what people do. Trying to discern what they think, and how they feel, falls into the realm of mindreading. It is not reporting."

SM,

Quite so. I think it is much better to stick with the practical matters and solutions to gun crime in the USA. Now, there is a related point on this issue, coming from the Louisiana cinema shooting.

In crowded public areas, such as in a cinema, it is much harder for victims and/or well meaning armed bystanders to effectively use their firearms. In a crowd situation, the initial shooter may trigger other (well meaning) shooters who fail to hit their mark, but by firing will attract the bullets of further well meaning bystanders. Very quickly the initial shooter isn't the only problem as others may be firing at the wrong targets.

This might be called a 'domino effect' as the firing gets out of control, with successive well meaning shooters targeting the wrong people. It may be that in depth firearms training for all citizens could help the situation, but I see the likelihood of errors remaining in the case of a general shooting conflagration.

It may be possible to have a system of checking guns at the door, in the cases of cinemas, bars and clubs, but this approach might fall foul of the NRA legislators. Some people may feel that collateral damage among men, women and children in public places is a price worth paying?

Alex.

PS – In previous discussions we have talked about the effectiveness of knives as opposed to guns. Maybe it would be appropriate for guns to be checked in at the door, but for folks to carry their personal knives readily to hand in order to stay safe and secure on the premises? Even then, though, I think honest mistakes could happen. Also, in the journalist shootings I don't think that knives would have been much use, as the shooter was armed with a handgun and had the advantage of distance.

I can see now why you would never be hired to work in a security detail, at any level.

Mr P and folks,

Here are the words of a grieving father:

"If Alison had an AK47, it would've made no difference."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -live.html

Alex.

Should dig it up, but the high number of shooting deaths in the US is particularly high because of the war on drugs and crime infested slums. If you deduct those from the total, there is not much of a difference with other countries with much stricter gun control like here in Europe where the war on drugs is way lower and without crime infested gang slums.

Conclusion: the problem is not gun control but the war on drugs and crime infested slums.

Manolo, you like Joe Biden? He is employed by the drug cartels in Mexico et-al. He doesn't want to legalize drugs. As such he is co-responsible for the enormous drug related crime and death rates in the USA.

Parodite wrote:Should dig it up, but the high number of shooting deaths in the US is particularly high because of the war on drugs and crime infested slums. If you deduct those from the total, there is not much of a difference with other countries with much stricter gun control like here in Europe where the war on drugs is way lower and without crime infested gang slums.

Conclusion: the problem is not gun control but the war on drugs and crime infested slums.

Well stated Parodite.

Those who blame inanimate objects for human behavior are very special thinkers. They often seem to have a child like ability to avoid the concept of personal responsibility.

Similarly, the solution to computer security, or injury by automobile, motorcycle, horse riding, skiing, hiking, mountain climbing, or air travel is equally apparent.

There are lots of isolated "cultures" in the continental US. The desire to tar all with one brush is also a sign of a special thinker (bigot).

"The desire to save others is often a false front for the desire to rule others." (crusader)

The individual's interpretation often reveals very little about the actual event.

Perhaps legalizing drugs would destroy a larger percentage of US GDP, and create greater "unemployment" (at least in the black market economy) than eliminating all firearms related industry activity. Perhaps that is why politicians do not "go there."

A cost/benefit analysis of effective bans on drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or guns may show the current situation is better than the alternative.

Legalizing drugs would increase unemployment in a crime infested slum. Would the local crime/violence rate go up or down?

Which variables to choose and how to measure?

Everybody likes the idea of braking the other guy's egg to build the community omelet, few voluntarily sacrifice their own egg.

manolo wrote:Mr P and folks,

Here are the words of a grieving father:

"If Alison had an AK47, it would've made no difference."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -live.html

Alex.

And...

I sent your post to my friends in SWAT and EOD, we had a great time with it.