PDA

View Full Version : Two reporters shot and killed on live TV in Virginia


connabard
08-26-2015, 11:49 AM
http://mic.com/articles/124429/gunman-at-bridgewater-plaza-kills-2-reporters-on-air?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

This is one of the most disturbing things I've seen, and my heart goes to the family of both. Apparently the gunman made a twitter account and posted a video of him shooting them, though I haven't been able to find that.

Unbelievable.

Terez
08-26-2015, 11:54 AM
They're now saying it's a disgruntled former reporter for the network. Perhaps he had a romantic interest in her? Both of the victims had romantic relationships with co-workers.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/29882220/sources-wdbj-shooting-suspect-is-former-reporter-bryce-williams

Daekyras
08-26-2015, 11:57 AM
http://mic.com/articles/124429/gunman-at-bridgewater-plaza-kills-2-reporters-on-air?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

This is one of the most disturbing things I've seen, and my heart goes to the family of both. Apparently the gunman made a twitter account and posted a video of him shooting them, though I haven't been able to find that.

Unbelievable.

That's terrible.

Apparently he is a disgruntled worker. I hate hearing about stuff like this.

Davian93
08-26-2015, 12:30 PM
They're now saying it's a disgruntled former reporter for the network. Perhaps he had a romantic interest in her? Both of the victims had romantic relationships with co-workers.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/29882220/sources-wdbj-shooting-suspect-is-former-reporter-bryce-williams

Crazy small world time but my friend is friends with the camera guy shot/killed and knows others involved. Apparently the shooter felt that the woman had made racist comments about him and was part of why he was fired.

Mind you, that didn't actually happen supposedly but that was the accusation behind it.


Good thing that gun violence is impossible to solve and this is just the price we have to pay for "freedom" in America.

Terez
08-26-2015, 03:09 PM
Apparently he led police on a chase, then shot himself, then died in the hospital.

Southpaw2012
08-26-2015, 09:43 PM
The shooter was black and said it was revenge on white people. However, the media is silent as to the "racism" stuff since it's not the other way around.

Southpaw2012
08-26-2015, 09:44 PM
Crazy small world time but my friend is friends with the camera guy shot/killed and knows others involved. Apparently the shooter felt that the woman had made racist comments about him and was part of why he was fired.

Mind you, that didn't actually happen supposedly but that was the accusation behind it.


Good thing that gun violence is impossible to solve and this is just the price we have to pay for "freedom" in America.



He accused everyone of racism, even though those same people tried helping him. He was the true racist, who shot two white as "revenge" for what that nut job did in Charleston.

Davian93
08-27-2015, 08:37 AM
Or perhaps he was just another mentally ill man who should never have had access to a gun in the first place.

I'd also put the SC kid in that category.

I mean, he also murdered his cats and had a huge amount of anger at the entire world for feeling slighted...that's not normal or rational.

fdsaf3
08-27-2015, 12:48 PM
I'm a young adult who has been around the internet for a while. I don't necessarily seek out the extreme videos you can find if you know where to look. I haven't seen the gratuitous murder videos such as the one where the guys torture and beat someone to death with a hammer. But I have seen some shit, as they say. I watched the Budd Dwyer suicide. I've seen an assortment of graphic pictures. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily desensitized to violence or gore on the internet, but I'm not entirely unexposed to it either.

The video of the shooting yesterday haunted me. Truly, deeply haunted me.

As I've thought about why that is, I've come to the conclusion that I can sort of distance myself from a gross picture on the internet by trying to look at it objectively. At the end of the day, it's just blood or guts or whatever. But the video yesterday was horrific in that I watched a guy gun down two people. Their terrified screams and reactions were unfiltered, raw, and a true glimpse into the horror that they endured in the moments before their death. Death happens, but the part that truly haunts me still is hearing them scream. You can't take an objective look at that. You can't ignore the fact that humans are screaming and terrified and about to die. The video is only a handful of seconds in length, but I barely made it through. Then you factor in all the stuff we've learned about the victims since this happened...it's a nightmare.

I haven't been this shaken by something that I've seen or heard about on the internet since I listened to the 911 tape of the guy in the World Trade Center as it fell.

My opinion on this is simple. There's a conversation forming around the intersection of mental health issues and gun ownership. It's an important conversation. So is racism. That's a key factor in this particular incident.

But for me, making this into a social or political issue at this juncture feels borderline insensitively premature. It's a natural reaction, I suppose. But let's deal with the fact that it happened before we launch into debates about gun ownership or institutionalized racism.

But this is just me.

Terez
08-27-2015, 03:37 PM
The argument generally goes that once the emotion has passed, so has the political will to do anything about it.

I didn't watch the video; I almost never do in situations like this. I watched Walter Scott and Tamir Rice because I was told they weren't too graphic or dramatic and I wanted to see for myself whether the shootings were justified. In this case, there's no reason for me to watch; the killer is dead and no one questions his guilt.

fdsaf3
08-27-2015, 04:55 PM
That's fair to a point, but there's also a question in my mind about the efficacy of an argument when emotions are so raw in the first place. Ideally there would be a middle ground: long enough from the tragedy to take the raw edge off the emotions, but soon enough afterwards not to lose sight of the emotional impact of the incident.

I think the conversation about the intersection of mental health and gun violence is incredibly important. I just don't have it in me to participate in that conversation right now. But again, this is just me. I never pretended to speak for anyone else.

Kimon
08-27-2015, 07:22 PM
The argument generally goes that once the emotion has passed, so has the political will to do anything about it.



This. Those calling for a moratorium oft seem to be doing so simply so that enough time has passed to ensure that nothing gets done. I wish I could hope that something prudent could be done now, as apparently does Alison's Parker's father, but if nothing happened after Sandy Hook, it's hard to see anything happening under any circumstances.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34077174

Frenzy
08-28-2015, 01:27 AM
The shooter was black and said it was revenge on white people. However, the media is silent as to the "racism" stuff since it's not the other way around.

You forgot to blame the atheists too. i've seen that all over my Facebook feed.

GonzoTheGreat
08-28-2015, 04:34 AM
That's fair to a point, but there's also a question in my mind about the efficacy of an argument when emotions are so raw in the first place. Ideally there would be a middle ground: long enough from the tragedy to take the raw edge off the emotions, but soon enough afterwards not to lose sight of the emotional impact of the incident.

I think the conversation about the intersection of mental health and gun violence is incredibly important. I just don't have it in me to participate in that conversation right now. But again, this is just me. I never pretended to speak for anyone else.Happily for the NRA, before the "time is right to have the debate" there'll be a new shooting, which resets the clock again.
Thus, thanks to a plentiful supply of heavily armed nut cases, the nut cases ensure that they can be heavily armed when their turn to flip out comes along.

fdsaf3
08-28-2015, 09:04 AM
This. Those calling for a moratorium oft seem to be doing so simply so that enough time has passed to ensure that nothing gets done. I wish I could hope that something prudent could be done now, as apparently does Alison's Parker's father, but if nothing happened after Sandy Hook, it's hard to see anything happening under any circumstances.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34077174

And those who use tragic events like this to push for their own personal or political agendas are oft manipulative, or at least woefully dense and insensitive, douchebags. It's ambulance chasing on a national level, and it's disgusting. I think you're right about one thing, though. If there wasn't a dramatic, lasting shift in the national conversation about this topic after Sandy Hook I don't see it happening here.

Happily for the NRA, before the "time is right to have the debate" there'll be a new shooting, which resets the clock again.
Thus, thanks to a plentiful supply of heavily armed nut cases, the nut cases ensure that they can be heavily armed when their turn to flip out comes along.

I'll try to address what I think is the underlying point you're alluding to. For better or worse, some gun deaths trigger these kind of national (and I can't speak for international since I don't have that frame of reference) conversations about gun ownership, the right to own a firearm, and the intersection of various related issues of mental health, race, class, poverty, etc. If we go as far back as Columbine, I seem to remember that the collective reaction was shock, horror, and mourning. Granted, I was only 14 at the time, so my memory might not be that great about what happened after that tragic event. But I don't remember there being conversations literally hours after the news broke about whether or not people should be allowed to own guns or whether individuals seeking to buy guns ought to go under a mental evaluation first. If Facebook or Twitter had existed back then, I wonder if we would have seen status updates or tweets from people who wanted to use the events of that day to further their own political agendas. We'll never know for sure.

Weird Harold
08-28-2015, 10:57 AM
And those who use tragic events like this to push for their own personal or political agendas are oft manipulative, or at least woefully dense and insensitive, douchebags. It's ambulance chasing on a national level, and it's disgusting. I think you're right about one thing, though. If there wasn't a dramatic, lasting shift in the national conversation about this topic after Sandy Hook I don't see it happening here.

I wouldn't have a lot of trouble with using a tragedy as springboard to effective countermeasures, but...

Gun Control Could Not Have Stopped The Roanoke Shooting (dailycaller.com/2015/08/28/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-the-roanoke-shooting/)

Scott Greer
Associate Editor
1:03 AM 08/28/2015

After the shooting deaths of a Roanoke, Va. TV news crew shocked the nation Wednesday, the calls for gun control immediately began pouring in.

...

But let’s be clear: no currently proposed gun restrictions would have prevented the tragedy.

GonzoTheGreat
08-28-2015, 11:14 AM
When it comes to gun control, one issue that is customarily ignored is that of supply and demand.
Because of the fairly lax gun laws in the USA, there is a lot of demand there for guns, and a result of that is that lots of guns are produced (and sold) there. If gun regulations actually really did cut down on the number of gun sales, then a lot of supply would disappear too, because the gun manufacturers would either decrease their production or go bust.

Obviously, that's not a quick fix. That may very well be why no politician talks about this; even if he got it passed into law the results wouldn't be visible until long after he'd been voted out of office.

Southpaw2012
08-28-2015, 12:29 PM
The shooter was so crazy that he accused the victim of racism after she said they needed to go out into the field. You know, since no other reporter every uses that term...

fdsaf3
08-28-2015, 01:08 PM
When it comes to gun control, one issue that is customarily ignored is that of supply and demand.
Because of the fairly lax gun laws in the USA, there is a lot of demand there for guns, and a result of that is that lots of guns are produced (and sold) there. If gun regulations actually really did cut down on the number of gun sales, then a lot of supply would disappear too, because the gun manufacturers would either decrease their production or go bust.

Obviously, that's not a quick fix. That may very well be why no politician talks about this; even if he got it passed into law the results wouldn't be visible until long after he'd been voted out of office.

I will plead ignorance on this specific issue since I don't know. I won't even do a disservice by running a quick Google search and passing those results off as something more than what they are. I honestly don't know how many guns are legitimately sold every year. I also don't know how many are sold illegally. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of guns which are part of a violent crime are bought illegally. Therefore, it doesn't really matter what the laws are. The government can largely dictate the market for something like alcohol or cigarettes because there aren't that many people selling either product from the back of their vans.

But again, this is all mostly my impressions and not based on any hard evidence either way.

What I would want to know about this are the following:

1. How many legally owned firearms are there in the United States right now?

2. What is the best estimate for how many illegal firearms are in the U.S. right now?

3. How many people own a legal firearm?

4. What is the best estimate for how many individual people own the pool of illegal firearms?

5. How many legal firearms are produced for sale in the U.S. every year?

6. What percentage of that supply is sold legally?

7. What happens to the excess supply? Is it sold to the military? Shipped off to foreign countries? Put in storage?

Some of these questions (I'm guessing) are easily Google-able, but I think the broader question goes deeper than that. My instinct doesn't agree with you that there's a 'strong' demand for firearm ownership, but I don't know many people who own them in the first place. So, let's ignore my bias and try to frame the discussion with some semblance of factual basis.

The Unreasoner
08-28-2015, 01:25 PM
From the Onion:

WASHINGTON—Reasoning that it would likely be a much better use of their time and effort, exasperated citizens across the nation announced plans Thursday to try channeling their current outrage over the country’s lack of effective gun control into an issue that can actually be addressed. “We’ve felt this collective indignation so many times before and it’s come to nothing, so maybe if we take all this anger and focus it on something achievable, like repairing our roads or modernizing the electrical grid, we could make some actual progress,” said Atlanta resident Kathryn Greenfield, one of millions of Americans who agreed that there were probably dozens of pressing national issues that could be solved using energy that would simply be wasted trying to limit access to firearms. “Improving care for our veterans or guaranteeing universal preschool education both seem like attainable goals if we wanted to direct our shared aggravation that way, or even something small like cleaning up our national parks. It’d be great if we could just accomplish something here.” At press time, the nation’s outrage had already dissipated too greatly to be capable of influencing public policy in any meaningful way.

Frenzy
08-28-2015, 01:59 PM
ouch

Tomp
08-30-2015, 06:44 PM
I saw this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/) article from Washington post the other day.

Where they show that there's more than one mass shooting per day.

Kimon
08-30-2015, 07:45 PM
I saw this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/) article from Washington post the other day.

Where they show that there's more than one mass shooting per day.

That Washington Post Article links to an even more disturbing study in Vox, which compares gun violence in America to the more civilized parts of the globe...

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

For instance, Sweden apparently has 4.1 gun-related homicides per million people, compared to 29.7 per million in America. And that while we possess 4.4% of the world's population, we possess 42% of the world's civilian-owned guns. Sometimes we're "exceptional" for the wrong reason...