Two TV journalists shot dead live on air

[useful idiot]

The man used to be a reporter here in Tallahassee, where he was fired. He seems to have been quite a loose cannon.

And yet he was still able to get a gun.

Do you think a stricter gun law would have stopped this?  Sorry, but I think that's completely emotion-based and naive.

Of course there are types of stricter gun laws that would have stopped this.

Of course none of them are remotely constitutional and would have only prevented this from being a "shooting" and instead made it a stabbing. This was targeted at two people, it wasn't a mass shooting. He used a handgun (something he, as a non-felon and person who was not adjudicated mentally ill, had a constitutional right to) against unarmed people with no one else around to stop him. No one that worked with him thought he was violently mentally ill, if those coworkers being interviewed are to be believed; they just thought he was overly litigious and had a temper.

If there was a case that cried out for some kind of further gun regulation, this ain't it. It isn't Sandy Hook. The media outlets using this tragedy to push for more gun control just reveal themselves to be what they are: people who get excited when these things happen because they can use it to score points for their side.

[YaBoyNY]

The man used to be a reporter here in Tallahassee, where he was fired. He seems to have been quite a loose cannon.

And yet he was still able to get a gun.

Do you think a stricter gun law would have stopped this?  Sorry, but I think that's completely emotion-based and naive.

Of course there are types of stricter gun laws that would have stopped this.

Of course none of them are remotely constitutional and would have only prevented this from being a "shooting" and instead made it a stabbing. This was targeted at two people, it wasn't a mass shooting. He used a handgun (something he, as a non-felon and person who was not adjudicated mentally ill, had a constitutional right to) against unarmed people with no one else around to stop him. No one that worked with him thought he was violently mentally ill, if those coworkers being interviewed are to be believed; they just thought he was overly litigious and had a temper.

If there was a case that cried out for some kind of further gun regulation, this ain't it. It isn't Sandy Hook. The media outlets using this tragedy to push for more gun control just reveal themselves to be what they are: people who get excited when these things happen because they can use it to score points for their side.

I mean, if you want to be technical, no specific type of gun is protected.

Both this and the Charlston shooting were the acts of lone mentally deranged individuals, they were both near unanimously condemned by society and therefore in no way representative of society, except maybe in regard to its handling of mental illness and gun control.

This is such a useless post.

[Iosif]

The man used to be a reporter here in Tallahassee, where he was fired. He seems to have been quite a loose cannon.

And yet he was still able to get a gun.

Do you think a stricter gun law would have stopped this?  Sorry, but I think that's completely emotion-based and naive.

Of course there are types of stricter gun laws that would have stopped this.

If there was a case that cried out for some kind of further gun regulation, this ain't it. It isn't Sandy Hook. The media outlets using this tragedy to push for more gun control just reveal themselves to be what they are: people who get excited when these things happen because they can use it to score points for their side.

Yes, the father of the victim couldn't believe his luck when he heard his daughter was gunned down. He can finally point score for gun control on television! Hooray!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alison-parkers-father-weve-got-to-do-something-about-crazy-people-getting-guns/

[Blair]

Has no-one ever heard of Dunblane?

[Iosif]

Has no-one ever heard of Dunblane?

I was a school kid in Aberdeen during Dunblane. I remember it and the aftermath very well. What's your point?

[useful idiot]

The man used to be a reporter here in Tallahassee, where he was fired. He seems to have been quite a loose cannon.

And yet he was still able to get a gun.

Do you think a stricter gun law would have stopped this?  Sorry, but I think that's completely emotion-based and naive.

Of course there are types of stricter gun laws that would have stopped this.

Of course none of them are remotely constitutional and would have only prevented this from being a "shooting" and instead made it a stabbing. This was targeted at two people, it wasn't a mass shooting. He used a handgun (something he, as a non-felon and person who was not adjudicated mentally ill, had a constitutional right to) against unarmed people with no one else around to stop him. No one that worked with him thought he was violently mentally ill, if those coworkers being interviewed are to be believed; they just thought he was overly litigious and had a temper.

If there was a case that cried out for some kind of further gun regulation, this ain't it. It isn't Sandy Hook. The media outlets using this tragedy to push for more gun control just reveal themselves to be what they are: people who get excited when these things happen because they can use it to score points for their side.

I mean, if you want to be technical, no specific type of gun is protected.

Heller outlined the types of weapons that could not be banned, and McDonald applied the same standard nationwide. A person has a right to any gun in common use for lawful purposes (the ruling considered self-defense as lawful). There can be restrictions, but not a prohibition. Handguns were the type of gun at issue in the case, and therefore obviously covered. This guy used a Glock semi-automatic handgun after passing a background check; doesn't get much more common....

Yes, the father of the victim couldn't believe his luck when he heard his daughter was gunned down. He can finally point score for gun control on television! Hooray!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alison-parkers-father-weve-got-to-do-something-about-crazy-people-getting-guns/

I know you're just being a jackass, but I wasn't aware that he was a "media outlet" or that he had a "side." So, doesn't really have anything do with what I wrote. I should have expanded my comments to include politicians, however, including McAuliffe, who used this opportunity to blame the state legislature for not passing his gun-control laws that wouldn't have stopped this shooting at all.

If you read your own link, the father actually doesn't advocate for any kind of gun control that I don't support, or that most gun owners don't support. He didn't say anything about banning certain types of guns or limiting magazine capacity to six rounds. The NRA itself wants stronger background checks to limit availability to the mentally ill, and they have supported Cornyn's bill in the senate which aims for that by easing the civil commitment requirement. The dad mentioned "loopholes." I'm personally fine with requiring background checks on private sales, but from everything I've read, this guy purchased his gun from a store with a background check.

[afleitch]

Has no-one ever heard of Dunblane?

I was a school kid in Aberdeen during Dunblane. I remember it and the aftermath very well. What's your point?

Loner/man who felt slighted by own community + gun = easy carnage.

[Iosif]

Has no-one ever heard of Dunblane?

I was a school kid in Aberdeen during Dunblane. I remember it and the aftermath very well. What's your point?

Loner/man who felt slighted by own community + gun = easy carnage.

All the more reason to heavily restrict guns.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's curious how a lot of people only (pretend to) care about those who struggle with mental illness* when someone (who is usually a man, and usually a white man for that matter- although not in this case) "snaps" like this - and uses a gun, which is usually the weapon of choice for those who wish to easily inflict as much carnage as possible.

America is an increasingly atomized society, with a rather pathetic safety net and with decreasing public investment in...well, basically anything that isn't related to the military-industrial/ prison-industrial complex, or "entitlement" spending for the older generation. The constant media stimulation of the public's amygdalas doesn't help, either.

Anyway, RIP to the victims, and condolences to their families and friends. Such an appalling, horrific tragedy.



*Assuming  that this man was, in fact, mentally ill -which I'm sure the armchair psychiatrists will be quick to stress.

[useful idiot]

The man used to be a reporter here in Tallahassee, where he was fired. He seems to have been quite a loose cannon.

And yet he was still able to get a gun.

Do you think a stricter gun law would have stopped this?  Sorry, but I think that's completely emotion-based and naive.

Of course there are types of stricter gun laws that would have stopped this.

Of course none of them are remotely constitutional and would have only prevented this from being a "shooting" and instead made it a stabbing. This was targeted at two people, it wasn't a mass shooting. He used a handgun (something he, as a non-felon and person who was not adjudicated mentally ill, had a constitutional right to) against unarmed people with no one else around to stop him. No one that worked with him thought he was violently mentally ill, if those coworkers being interviewed are to be believed; they just thought he was overly litigious and had a temper.

If there was a case that cried out for some kind of further gun regulation, this ain't it. It isn't Sandy Hook. The media outlets using this tragedy to push for more gun control just reveal themselves to be what they are: people who get excited when these things happen because they can use it to score points for their side.

I mean, if you want to be technical, no specific type of gun is protected.

Heller outlined the types of weapons that could not be banned, and McDonald applied the same standard nationwide. A person has a right to any gun in common use for lawful purposes (the ruling considered self-defense as lawful). There can be restrictions, but not a prohibition. Handguns were the type of gun at issue in the case, and therefore obviously covered. This guy used a Glock semi-automatic handgun after passing a background check; doesn't get much more common....

Your argument is about what the law of the United States currently is under this court's interpretation of the Constitution. Everybody else in this thread is talking about what the law should be. There's a difference.

I'm not sure what your point is, exactly. Everyone agrees that if there were no guns then there would be no gun violence. The fact is that there are guns, there is a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that contains the Second Amendment, there are two fairly definitive (yet somewhat lenient) Supreme Court rulings interpreting that amendment, a number of subsequent lower court rulings based on those cases, and political realities. There isn't much use in advocating for laws that are nearly impossible to see come to fruition (such as an Australia or UK-style gun ban).

The poster I responded to wrote that no specific types of guns are protected, which is not true under our system of a Supreme Court-filtered Constitution. To address your "this court's interpretation" comment, another reality is that the laws and the body of legal interpretation is largely shifting away from the classic 70's-80's era gun-control position. In terms of the Constitution, the so-called "national guard" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is hardly invoked in serious discussion any longer. The Brady Campaign, for instance, supported the Heller ruling; when you have the leading (and only major) gun-control advocacy group supporting a ruling affirming the right to keep and bear a handgun for self-defense, there isn't much wiggle room for further restriction of handguns themselves.

[Famous Mortimer]

The man used to be a reporter here in Tallahassee, where he was fired. He seems to have been quite a loose cannon.

And yet he was still able to get a gun.

Do you think a stricter gun law would have stopped this?  Sorry, but I think that's completely emotion-based and naive.

Of course there are types of stricter gun laws that would have stopped this.

Of course none of them are remotely constitutional and would have only prevented this from being a "shooting" and instead made it a stabbing. This was targeted at two people, it wasn't a mass shooting. He used a handgun (something he, as a non-felon and person who was not adjudicated mentally ill, had a constitutional right to) against unarmed people with no one else around to stop him. No one that worked with him thought he was violently mentally ill, if those coworkers being interviewed are to be believed; they just thought he was overly litigious and had a temper.

If there was a case that cried out for some kind of further gun regulation, this ain't it. It isn't Sandy Hook. The media outlets using this tragedy to push for more gun control just reveal themselves to be what they are: people who get excited when these things happen because they can use it to score points for their side.

I mean, if you want to be technical, no specific type of gun is protected.

Both this and the Charlston shooting were the acts of lone mentally deranged individuals, they were both near unanimously condemned by society and therefore in no way representative of society, except maybe in regard to its handling of mental illness and gun control.

This is such a useless post.

You think it's useless, so you agree that it's painfully obviously true?