Virgina reporter and cameraman killed by shooter on live TV

[Slinky]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tv-reporter-cameraman-killed-gunman-opens-fire-virginia/story?id=33327920

 

A shooting on live television has left a reporter and a cameraman dead, according to their news station.

Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, were killed in the field during a live news segment this morning in Moneta, Virginia, according to their station, WDBJ-TV, a CBS affiliate serving the Roanoke-Lynchburg television market.

The Franklin County sheriff confirmed that it is considered an active-shooter situation and the suspect, who is believed to be male, is not in custody at this time.

The incident was reported at 6:45 a.m. and schools in the surrounding area have been placed on lock down, according to a Facebook post from Bedford County Public Schools.

The shooting itself took place at Bridgewater Plaza, a recreational facility with shops, restaurants, a mini golf course and boat rentals.

WDBJ president and general manager Jeffrey A. Marks went on air this morning confirming the two deaths and noting that both victims were in relationships with other staffers at the station.

He said it was his "very very sad duty" to report their deaths, and noted that the shooting is under investigation. "We have other members of the team with us today holding back tears, frankly," Marks said.

Marks said Parker was a graduate of James Madison University, while Ward was a Virginia Tech graduate.

Marks and the anchors confirmed on air that Ward's fiancee was a morning producer at the station who was celebrating her last day at work today before starting a new job. Parker reportedly brought in balloons as part of the celebration before going out for the fatal live report.

The station is owned by Schurz Communications of South Bend, Indiana.

[Techi☺]

What the funk?

 

That is so awful. Like, too awful.

[mido9]

 

RIP

[Progenitor]

So is there no footage of the shooter? The camera angle shown briefly by that video on ABC actually covered a pretty wide view except of course behind them. Though I guess this only happened a few hours ago. Very strange course of events indeed. It's very hard to even think of a plausible motive considering how incredibly spontaneous the event was. Well not much to do but hunt that psycho down and offer our condolences.

[epicmemesbro]

Holy smokes, it reminds of this incident. http://controversialtimes.com/news/video-australian-biker-confesses-to-shooting-to-news-reporter-on-camera-then-steals-his-car/

 

 

except in that the reporter makes it alive, also the biker confessed to the crime.

[Dramatic Crossroad]

http://heavy.com/news/2015/08/lester-lee-flanagan-flanighan-flanigan-wdbj-tv-disgruntled-employee-virginia-shooting-suspect-cameraman-photos-video-chase-gun-gunman-arrested/

 

[Progenitor]

Wtf is that comment section. Best comment:

"Well obviously the best course of action is the ban balck people"

Response?

100 some comments telling him that he's the devil.

 

 

Lol wut iz sarcasm how door u evn

[chairman ali]

Seems like everyone who goes to/gone to Virgina Tech gets shot.

 

just saying.

['tyleR]

Seems like everyone who goes to/gone to Virgina Tech gets shot.

 

just saying.

 

Nigga u savage.

 

This sheet was a tragedy tho.

[bury the year]

I'm waiting for someone to say that restrictions on gun access are bad.

 

...anyone? No? Good.

[Lazer Yoshi]

It's amazing how many people have already turned this whole thing into a race issue.

 

All the backwards Conservatives in my town are screaming "Oh really, black people are oppressed? Well just LOOK AT THIS! Three white people shot by a black man?! SURELY white people are being victimized in this day and age!"

 

Anyone who tells you that this whole conflict is based on race is a fuckstick and should be disregarded as such.

[Tentacruel]

I'm waiting for someone to say that restrictions on gun access are bad.

 

...anyone? No? Good.

Restrictions on gun access as a knee-jerk reaction any singular event are bad.

 

This sheet happens all the time.  People know the statistics.  It's not gonna change peoples' minds. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

So I just learned the shooter also killed his cats.

 

This sounds like a joke, but it's not.

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

Restrictions on gun access as a knee-jerk reaction any singular event are bad.

 

This sheet happens all the time.  People know the statistics.  It's not gonna change peoples' minds. 

 

With all due respect, I sincerely doubt the people voicing support for restricting gun acess at this point are doing it as a knee-jerk reaction considering how the US time, and time, and time again needs to endure shootings, murders, and general tragedies just cause of how easy it is for unstable individuals to get ahold of guns in that country.

 

Just reading the article alone, if even half of what they say about the guy is true I'm amazed that no one caught on that it probably is not a good idea to allow him acess to guns. Anger issues, and that general level of behaviour is not something that's born over night.

 

It's no secret that the US has a incredibly toxic view of guns, and I cannot understand how it'd be a bad idea to finally get some restrictions in place to curb the violence. Sometimes people are gonna have to stand up and say "Enough is enough" and if this is what it takes for americans to do so then by all means, go ahead.

 

Pointing to the frequency of gun related incidents wont help when people dont consider why it's so frequent to begin with

[Progenitor]

With all due respect, I sincerely doubt the people voicing support for restricting gun acess at this point are doing it as a knee-jerk reaction considering how the US time, and time, and time again needs to endure shootings, murders, and general tragedies just cause of how easy it is for unstable individuals to get ahold of guns in that country.

 

Just reading the article alone, if even half of what they say about the guy is true I'm amazed that no one caught on that it probably is not a good idea to allow him acess to guns. Anger issues, and that general level of behaviour is not something that's born over night.

 

It's no secret that the US has a incredibly toxic view of guns, and I cannot understand how it'd be a bad idea to finally get some restrictions in place to curb the violence. Sometimes people are gonna have to stand up and say "Enough is enough" and if this is what it takes for americans to do so then by all means, go ahead.

 

Pointing to the frequency of gun related incidents wont help when people dont consider why it's so frequent to begin with

 

Because there are people in our country that have literally the exact opposite view.  The view that guns are not the issue.  People are.  People that have the incredibly rational fear that said restrictions will not actually fix the problem, but instead make it harder for those who want protection from psychos like this to actually acquire a means of success.  The always cite the example of drugs.  Drugs are illegal.  Yet drugs exist everywhere in the US, and it's usually the worst type of people smuggling them in and selling them on the black market.

 

Now apply that logic to gun restrictions.  If said restrictions are too harsh, then Black Market firearms may become much more prevalent, meaning said psychos have decently easy access to weapons while your everyday man may have to wait months on end for a through background check to actually complete.  That's what some people are deathly afraid of.

 

Granted I am not one of those people.  At the same time I am not on the other wing either.  It's my personal opinion that guns are only the enabler to a common issue.  if you take away the means without cutting off the method, then eventually a new means will be applied to actually achieve the methodology once again.

 

What people need to understand that this is not as simple as finding the proper amount of gun restrictions.  It goes much deeper than that.  If you take weed away from a stoner, chances are he'll just find another drug.  That's how humans are.  Taking away guns won't get psychos off the streets.  It'll just mean they have to find a new weapon.  There needs to be a happy medium here.  The US needs to actually compromise (and I don't mean that dirty ass rider sheet that every single funking bill gets done to it nowadays.  I mean legitimate, founding fathers style compromise) on a reasonable restriction law, but at the same time something has to be done with people who are actually unfit to wield weapons.  Unfortunately, that is nearly impossible.

 

Jeez that was quite a ramble wasn't it.  If only our politicians had some funking pride and (figuratively) some balls to actually make compromise we might actually be somewhat closer to a reasonable resolution.  But why would they do that?  it might cost them their precious votes.

[ihop]

I dunno, gun restrictions work pretty well in literally every other first-world country which all have stronger gun restrictions and substantially lower rates of gun crime.

[Progenitor]

I dunno, gun restrictions work pretty well in literally every other first-world country which all have stronger gun restrictions and substantially lower rates of gun crime.

 

Oh no doubt it will reduce it.  Do you see everyone walking around with a blunt in their mouth?

 

But there still will be gun crimes, and they still will be milked at every opportunity by our bloodthirsty media, and there always will be people crying for more restrictions because of it.

 

It's this paradox that divides everyone into two wings, since there are really only 2 solutions to it:  People who realize that it is paradoxical and say it's better to just leave things as is, and those that think the rabbit hole eventually has a bottom; that is to say eventually, with enough restriction, gun crime will almost cease to exist.

 

Additionally because the logic is paradoxical, people don't realize that it doesn't actually need to be solved.  If the "solution" is nearly impossible to reach, then why waste your time trying to solve everything?  Do what you can, do what you can agree on, and move on.  If you can do more, then do it.  To put it a bit more metaphorically:

 

You don't need to solve the absolutely and absurdly hard problem #30 on your calc test before you can do everything else.  You are better off doing everything you know how to do first so you can get the best grade, even if it means you have less time to work out this difficult problem.

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

What people need to understand that this is not as simple as finding the proper amount of gun restrictions.  It goes much deeper than that.  If you take weed away from a stoner, chances are he'll just find another drug.  That's how humans are.  Taking away guns won't get psychos off the streets.  It'll just mean they have to find a new weapon.

 

While yes, techniqly you will not be taking "psychos" off the streets, what you are taking away is their weapon, and therefore eliminating most from acting on their thoughts to hurt people. Yes, criminals are still gonna have acess to knives, criminals will still find other weapons, but putting a ban on guns has been highly effective in pretty much every country that's tried it.

 

The rate of mass shootings drop to effectively zero.

Homicides decrease drasticly (not a whole lot of people are actually gonna take to a knife to rob people)

Suicides (something I didnt even consider before actively looking up statistics on the matter) takes a nosedive.

 

Yeah, guns are and will be acessible to those fully intent to commit violent crime, but your general Joe-down-the-street is not gonna contact the Black Market, pay out the ass for a gun, ensure that the authorities dont discover it, meanwhile making up a plan to kill someone who they just felt ever so slightly insulted by because of anger issues, like the guy in the article.

 

Taking away guns is not a magical cure all for crime, I'm not trying to pretend it is neither do I think anyone else that's pro-restrictions is. However, the facts exist that violent crime takes a nosedive when people lack a quick and easy way to commit it.

And those that still are so intend to become a crimminal that they take to things like knives are still far less dangerous, and far easier to subdue then someone carrying a gun

[The Amazing Avian]

So there are these magical thingamabobs called Driver's Licenses. The purpose of those is to show you are responsible enough and trained to operate a motor vehicle. Seems perfectly reasonable doesn't it? Now, let's take this concept and apply it to firearms. Before even being able to purchase one, you need to take a course on gun safety, learn how to operate a firearm, go through a background check, etc. Also you need to renew it. I feel like this a pretty reasonable way to approach gun control in the US, but the NRA is really goddam loud.

[Agro]

 

Why thank you, Onion.

[Progenitor]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

 

Yeah, guns are and will be acessible to those fully intent to commit violent crime, but your general Joe-down-the-street is not gonna contact the Black Market, pay out the ass for a gun, ensure that the authorities dont discover it, meanwhile making up a plan to kill someone who they just felt ever so slightly insulted by because of anger issues, like the guy in the article.

 

Allow me to explain why this theory very much has the potential to be completely false.  

 

Back in 1919 our government, due to the unbelievable support behind a movement on the evils of alcohol, decided to ratify Amendment 18 to our Constitution, thereby making it not only legal, but straight up Unconstitutional to consume, purchase, or sell alcoholic beverages.  The movement had so much support in fact, that Amendment 18 was ratified in less than a month after passing Congress.  You'd be hard pressed to find an amendment of equal magnitude that was ratified even close to that quickly.

 

The Amendment was met with overwhelming praise.  After all, alcohol was the devil's nectar.  It turned strong willed men into bumbling fools and model citizens into sinners (I kid you not that was literally what almost everyone thought).  But America has alcohol now.  Which means something must of happened.  Well lets continue down this long stretch of film we call history.

 

The first few years were fine.  People didn't need alcohol.  They felt content with being model citizens.  But then things started to change.  Alcohol, as with most countries that allow it, was a significant chunk of the U.S. economy.  With it's abolishment, needless to say we had a little hiccup.  Unemployment spiked.  It wasn't a crisis, but it did indeed spike.  And so we have people desperate for money, with the Great Depression just on the horizon.

 

Not only that, but people actually started to come to their senses.  They realized that they actually kinda liked alcohol, and honestly they really had just gotten swept up in the hype.  So Speak-Easies started to emerge.  Essentially they were bars in a time where alcohol was illegal (gee kinda sounds like a certain market you know?).  People started craving this now forbidden substance.  And Smugglers were all too happy to oblige.  Obviously the government didn't just sit by and let this happen.  But imagine if literally everyone in the entire U.S. decided that August 28th was national poop on the sidewalk day.  Yeah the government can try to stop it, but the American Proletariat is not even on the same scale as the Government's power to enforce law.  Police would be so vastly outnumbered you couldn't even imagine.  Yeah they would get a few people.  Hell they would get a bunch of people.  but the people they do get would be less than 15% of the total population.  Such was the case with Prohibition.

 

Now back to the workers.  Out of a job, they catch wind of the now booming business of smuggling alcohol.  Gee wouldn't you wanna turn your rags into riches?  Of course you do.  Smugglers weren't stupid.  they new exactly the scope of what they were doing and how to go about doing it effectively, efficiently, and subtly.  Alcohol in an incredibly short amount of time went from nonexistent to America's most profitable business.  But with every big fish there's a leach on the belly.  Namely a little something we like to call the Mob.

 

Mobsters.  Gangsters.  the Mafia.  These are big time criminals.  Kingpins of cheating, and only care about one thing: profit.  They will gladly kill anyone and anything they need to to get what they want.  And with Alcohol so profitable, naturally these bastards flocked to it in droves.  It was now just as dangerous trying to actually bust these illegal operations than it was smuggling the stuff in.  The amount of recorded deaths that took place in this 14 year period that were a direct effect of smuggling, crime lords, making your own beverages, etc is absolutely disgusting.  Eventually the government said enough is enough, formally repealing the 18th amendment in 1933 with the 18th amendment.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So what has this taught us?  A well integrated American commodity was taken way at the consent of the people.  Eventually people began to realize how important said commodity was.  Smuggling became incredibly profitable, and as such became less of a Black Market and more of a free for all due to the good's popularity and the available, profitable work now right in front of those who lost their jobs.  As this business boomed, it was forcibly seized by the worst of criminals.  It became an absolute bloodbath trying to take these guys down.  and in the end, alcohol was forced to come back, as it was the only way the government could finally end this without more bloodshed.

 

Now I'm not saying that a total gun ban will cause Prohibition II: This time it's personal(ly affecting our 2nd amendment).  Hell with the new technologies and power our government has nowadays it would be incredibly difficult for things to actually escalate to the point it did.  However, it could.  That sheer possibility, no matter how slim, is there.  You say your Joe-Shmo won't go through all the effort of reaching the Black Market, but he already has in a different era with a different good.  Furthermore, why wouldn't he?  

 

Take for example this piece of sheet that killed the crew.  He killed his cats.  He, for the past month, has been filling his Twitter Feed with picture from his childhood, personal accomplishments, quotes, and other weird things you might expect from a memorial service.  He then had the balls to shoot a video of it, upload said video to facebook, post on his twitter that he was the killer, and list off his motives.  He then tried, and nearly succeeded to take his own life before the police could arrest him.

 

Think about that.  This man had such deep rooted hatred for this company and those people, that he rationalized that the message he would leave and the ripples it would cause were of greater significance than his own life.  He was trying to become a martyr.  Can you even imagine that?  If his rage was so deep seeded into his being, why wouldn't he take a trip to the black market and buy the cheapest handgun?  He's going to kill himself anyway.  

 

THAT'S what I mean by it won't solve the real problem.  History has taught us that even if you wipe every trace of a good away from your economy, it will still be there.  The more well liked the good, the more readily available it will become, and the closer the Black Market will become to it's own slice of the economy.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now don't take this the wrong way.  I am not on either end of the spectrum.  But I will interpret the legitimate arguments of both sides, so that a proper resolution can be reached.  That's the very basis of compromise.

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

I feel like this a pretty reasonable way to approach gun control in the US, but the NRA is really goddam loud.

 

I'm tempted to agree with you, because the NRA is basicly the one we all will point to regarding who's keeping gun restrictions as far away as possible from the USA. But the basic problem is that the founding fathers of the US made the misstake of creating the Second Amendment, and a nice quote from it reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

And people cannot for the life of them agree on what's the actuall scope of it. If the founding fathers, with the words "shall not be infringed", litterally meant completely free acess to guns, or if there should be some restrictions just to ensure crazy people dont get ahold of them *loud akward cough*

But as long as that particular sentence is part of the US Consitution, no one will ever win this debate, because those who do support restrictions could (so far) be considered wanting to do something unconstitutional, and for politicians that's a very risky move especially when there's a clear ammount of voters who're entirely against restricting guns

 

EDIT:

 

*snip*

While I have a fair share of problems with the comparison you're making, I believe this topic has been hijacked for way longer then it should've, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, or something

[.Rai]

I realise that I'm just posting the most provocative statement ever (and I realise the statement is ludicrous hyperbole), and I'd like to avoid that, but, in all honesty, some part of me does agree. https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/611943312401002496

 

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

 

I'll avoid going down that rabbit hole any further for now. It does exhaust you a bit. Condolences to the friends and family.

[Progenitor]

So there are these magical thingamabobs called Driver's Licenses. The purpose of those is to show you are responsible enough and trained to operate a motor vehicle. Seems perfectly reasonable doesn't it? Now, let's take this concept and apply it to firearms. Before even being able to purchase one, you need to take a course on gun safety, learn how to operate a firearm, go through a background check, etc. Also you need to renew it. I feel like this a pretty reasonable way to approach gun control in the US, but the NRA is really goddam loud.

 

This.  This is the first step.  Why won't it happen?  Because the NRA is one of the biggest and most influential lobbying parties in Congress.  They can single handedly get at least 5-6 representatives off the floor if they really wanted to.

 

Congress these days are more concerned with maintaining the status quo so that they can keep their jobs.  If you really want to see what actual politicians are, I implore you to watch John Oliver's (yes THAT John Oliver) interview with former Australian representatives in their struggles to get fair and just gun regulation.  I'll link the first video (I believe it's a 3 part segment) if I can find it right here.

 

 

But the overall gist is that the Australian people were acting just like the pro-gun americans are.  But a decent handful or representatives looked at each other and said, "If we pass this, we will lose our jobs.  However this is for the greater good of our country.  If the people hate this legislation that much, then they can pass counter legislation to repeal it once we are out of office"

 

And you know what?  They were not re-elected.  But the legislation has yet to be repealed.  Everything that is happening is 90% hype.  That is partially the media's fault, and it's exactly what the NRA is hoping for.  They have a vice on the crotch of every pro-gun state representative in Congress.  No matter what morals that representative may posses, they won't be able to make a shred of difference if they get knocked out of office before they can actually do anything.  And yet those who are indeed against radical exemption of gun regulations; those that realize how such a minor change as this quote can make a world of difference and ignore the hype do not have a strong enough presence, nor the courage to speak their mind and shrug off the NRA's hold on their vote.

 

And the extremists are not any better.  Any decent gun legislation that somehow finds it's way out of the House gets absolutely decimated with riders and changes in the Senate.  It's disgraceful. 

While I have a fair share of problems with the comparison you're making, I believe this topic has been hijacked for way longer then it should've, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, or something

 

 

Considering 90% of that post was a History lesson I don't really see how you can have problems with it, but whatever floats your boat.  I ain't here to make enemies.  I just want to ensure everyone know exactly what giving in to any one extreme can do.  Only when everyone not only understands, but comprehends, the other side of the argument will compromise come forth.  That's the exact basis of our Legislative system, which is very much so not even close to as honorable a position as it once was.

[The Amazing Avian]

I'm tempted to agree with you, because the NRA is basicly the one we all will point to regarding who's keeping gun restrictions as far away as possible from the USA. But the basic problem is that the founding fathers of the US made the misstake of creating the Second Amendment, and a nice quote from it reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

And people cannot for the life of them agree on what's the actuall scope of it. If the founding fathers litterally meant completely free acess to guns, or have some restrictions just to ensure crazy people dont get ahold of them *loud akward cough*

But as long as that particular sentence is part of the US Consitution, no one will ever win this debate, because those who do support restrictions could (so far) be considered going against the very Constitution, and for politicians that's a very risky move especially when there's a clear ammount of voters who're HUGELY against restricting guns

The founding fathers didn't have to deal with a shooting every week. At worst, maybe some schmuck decided "hey, funk this guy in particular" and would go shoot said guy. At the time, there was absolutely no way to predict how far technology would advance. Now we have automatic weapons, and very convenient means to load several shots, all of which can be unloaded in seconds.

 

Fast forward to now, there's a shooting every week using one or more of these advanced weapons and they're incredibly common now, which was also not an issue for the colonists. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this isn't working and will not work as long as firearms are as common as they are now.

 

The issue of a driver's license was also very controversial for its time because people were afraid that eventually they just wouldn't be allowed to drive at all. As it is now, some unqualified morons manage to slip through the cracks and its to be expected, no system is perfect. The same would happen with gun licenses. People would slip through the cracks. It's inevitable, but this can help avoid seeing a shooting every week.