It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two journalists killed in shooting during live newscast at Smith Mountain Lake

page: 43
79
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

That is a conservative estimate.


In the past, most guns available for sale were pr
oduced domestically. In recent years, 1 million to
2 million handguns were manufactured each year, along with 1 million to 1.5 million rifles and
fewer than 1 million shotguns.31 From 2001 through 2007, however, handgun imports nearly
doubled, from 711,000 to nearly 1.4 million.32 By 2009, nearly 2.2 million handguns were
imported into the United States.33 From 2001 through 2007, rifle imports increased from 228,000
to 632,000, and shotgun imports increased from 428,000 to 726,000.34 By 2009, rifle imports had
increased to 864,000, but shotguns had decreased 559,000.35 By the same year, 2009, the
estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to
approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.


Source




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware


Question: if guns were completely banned in the USA and unavailable, how many gun deaths would occur afterward? Answer: zero. Why: because there are no guns. I'm typing slowly so you understand.


You are fractally wrong.

There are over 250 million firearms in America, that's the number two-hundred fifty followed by six zeros (250,000,000) + do you honestly believe that first of all it would be possible to confiscate every single one of those guns? No? Then how about 50%? No? Alright...30%? Yes?

Okay! So we're gonna say if there was a gun ban in America and 30% of said firearms were completely confiscated then that would only leave America with 175,000,000 firearms. No no, you're absolutely right, I'm sure the government could probably confiscate more than 30% of guns, so let's just do half, 50% okay?

Okay! So now where does that leave us? 125,000,000. NO no, you're right again. I'm sure the government could confiscate more than 50%, what do you say...70%? Nah, let's just go 80%!

Okay! 80% of firearms? Confiscated! Gone! And we have a grand total of 50,000,000 still in circulation for criminals to obtain and use against the unarmed.

LMAO! Get lucid...In reality, the government would be lucky to confiscate 10% of firearms in America.

A measly 25 million, leaving 225,000,000 firearms...so much for your theory.

All you pointed out is how wrong your thinking is.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
If anybody cares, the third shooting victim was upgraded to "good condition" at about 6 this morning.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: elliotmtl
a reply to: Power_Semi

Basically, no.

People don't become shooters because they were treated too nicely.

And as an actual victim of abuse, I do not appreciate the sentiment expressed in your post.



There was a mad old woman at work and I used to take time out to talk to her, I couldnt really care about her hissing at people and religious preaching, her choice. I just said good morning to her, I stopped to say hello when were out and bumped into her and I treated her like everyone else, "sorry Margaret thats not my bag but carry on and I will see you later".

I was never rude to her, people used to ignore her or wind her up to get a reaction and say to me why do you tolerate her?? Tolerate her I would say, she does me no harm. "Do you not think its weird you saw her with a shopping trolley full of bread?" Sure but leave her alone, why would it bother you if you she sleeps in a cot full of bread slices?? Its weird....

So they would wind her up, get her to hiss at them, call her names, if i were there I would tell them to shut up.

Once day, I think it was after the klebold columbine school shooting thing and I said you know what, if Margaret goes postal one day im pretty sure she would say, forensick, please leave....

We all have a duty, if a black, fat, gay weirdo is offended and upset, then its your problem for making him feel like that. I had a girl who was made to cry at work and I went to the bully boy boss. the boss said she should toughen up, no I said, you need to temper your attitude to personality, he lost his job first because he ignored me.

I dont want to defend this and Im not the left brigade, but I dont want to be locked up for being mental as preventative maintenance either - but we need to do more work on the human psyche, I have chosen own way of handling mental people but human resources, unions and code of conducts in the workplace, are woefully pathetic.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
If anybody cares, the third shooting victim was upgraded to "good condition" at about 6 this morning.


Was that the lady being interviewed?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Yes.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: weirdeel

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware


Question: if guns were completely banned in the USA and unavailable, how many gun deaths would occur afterward? Answer: zero. Why: because there are no guns. I'm typing slowly so you understand.


You are fractally wrong.


No, you are factually wrong, and you are trying to ignore what this person is saying becuse it's an uncomfortable truth that you don't want to accept.

IF (and that is IF) there were NO GUNS in a country (however unlikely or implausible you think that is) there would be no gun related deaths, BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO GUNS.

This is not about how impossible you believe that to be, this is about the reality that if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths.

Likewise, if there were fewer guns, there would be fewer deaths.

If you don't have a Rhino in the room, the chances of being killed by a Rhino are 0.
If you are in an enclosure with ten Rhinos, the chances of being killed by a Rhino are extreme.

What part of this basic logic are people not getting?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Reallyfolks

That is a conservative estimate.


In the past, most guns available for sale were pr
oduced domestically. In recent years, 1 million to
2 million handguns were manufactured each year, along with 1 million to 1.5 million rifles and
fewer than 1 million shotguns.31 From 2001 through 2007, however, handgun imports nearly
doubled, from 711,000 to nearly 1.4 million.32 By 2009, nearly 2.2 million handguns were
imported into the United States.33 From 2001 through 2007, rifle imports increased from 228,000
to 632,000, and shotgun imports increased from 428,000 to 726,000.34 By 2009, rifle imports had
increased to 864,000, but shotguns had decreased 559,000.35 By the same year, 2009, the
estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to
approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.


Source




That's what I was getting at big difference between 2.5 million and 310 million non military guns in the US. But the reality is no matter what side of the debate you are on , doesn't matter. Gun bans, gun control, etc will not stop gun violence, that's obvious as 25,000 laws haven't stopped it. Then what you are talking about is confiscation. That will not happen without what????? That's right mass death on a large scale due to gun violence. The only solution to gun violence would be confiscation which only happens with gun violence on a scale you couldn't even fathom. The rest of the arguments are meaningless if you follow what's really being said to its logical conclusion. Pretty stupid debate.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Two people got shot and people on here are seriously thinking that the whole thing is fake, the shooter is not the guy they've said, that the woman shot is secretly a man??
I just don't even know what to say - staggering.
People want everything, literally everything to be a conspiracy.
Some of you need to go outside once in a while and take a break.
My thoughts go out to the family and friends of those affected by this tragedy.




Agreed. Not everything that occurs is a conspiracy. I respect the ATS community for their vast knowledge and expertise. But sometimes the theories presented are just ridiculous and outrageous. Some need to get out of mom's basement and get a good healthy dose of reality. The elaborate plots as presented by some to kill just two people is the stuff of a few hundred page fiction novel.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: iDope

originally posted by: DarkGuardian
a reply to: old_god

Ok man, here' where I'll stop you... You might have a few valid point... to some people. But i will have to say, from experience. Those were not blanks...
The weapon apears to be a Glock 38, which is a .45, due to from the width of the weapon, it was firing live rounds due to the obvious recoil. Also, adrenaline is realeased into your body, in such a quick exert, that you inact an almost subhuman level of endurance. It does't last long, and actually deprives the body of much needed engergy and focus, that people typically die as a result of the deficit. But, she did show signs of being hit with a projectile, mulitple times too.

The truth is, people don't get shot and fall to the ground. For that very brief instant, you don't realise it, but you actually don't feel anything. You definetly feel the aftermath...

To say it was fake is completly ignorant and wrong.

If you have ever TRULY been in a situaltion where people are getting shot, then you KNOW how people react. People react in three ways, and only three way, you run, you show reaction towards the threat, or the most common, you freeze. The camera man and the woman being interviewed froze, the anchor, she fled.

Most people would love to believe that they would react in a manner to control the situation, but the fact of the matter is, they won't. They will freeze.

This obviously really happened.

It was premeditated, and executed exactly as intended, so it seems.

Try to have a good night, in light of our terrible tradgedy...


*snip* Why would noone notice this disgruntled worker walking up behind them on a wooden dock like surface? And then he points the gun at the reporter for several second seconds and even mumbles to himself before firing several seconds after, waiting for the camera man to pan onto the reporter. This is like a B movie, Terror Firmer-Lloyd Kaufman, written all over it. You cannot prove those were real shots, and they were not.


If you watch the shooters POV video, Parker does look in his direction for a split second.

0:50 - 0:51




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

The basic problem with the "ban all the guns!" argument is this:

The white powdery substance that people snort is banned. People still get it.

Murdering people is banned, and people still do it. No gun required.

Driving your car into a crowd of people is outlawed, yet people still do it.

What on earth it is that makes the gun grabbers think that they'll magically disappear every single gun in the country is beyond me. Plenty of things are already banned and yet still accessible and doable. That's why I can't even pretend to take any "ban all the guns!" argument seriously. You come up with a plan on how you're going to make guns magically disappear and maybe then we can talk about how it won't work. Until then, anytime somebody goes down the "ban all the guns!" road we may as well discuss unicorns instead.
edit on 27-8-2015 by Shamrock6 because: Autocorrect fail



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I was being sarcastic about the cars, I was pointing out how obvious they were being about the lazy stats they posted.

If that was lost on you, I ain't mad'atcha!



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
The most basic and irrefutable argument against gun control.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

You're right, Rocker, if there were no guns, there would be no homicides committed with them. But the question is, realistically, how do you get from 300 million plus guns that we have right now to zero? We already know that a significant percentage will resist. I don't think anyone truly believes the criminal element is going to turn over their firearms. They have, at a minimum, millions of them, but perhaps tens of millions.

Then there are the legal owners who won't comply. We've already seen this recently on a mass scale even just on the mere concept of registration in Connecticut and New York, two states not exactly known for being packed full of gun rights advocates. How do you think confiscation is going to go in places in another 30 states like Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Arizona, Kansas, etc, where everyone has a firearm and they're part of the culture. Not well.

You might be able to sell confiscation in the UK or somewhere in Europe, but its not going to work here. You're not theoretically wrong on the basic idea that no guns will result in no gun related crime, but as a practical matter, its unworkable here.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78
Yes.
Imagine the government launching a 'war on guns', when we have seen the abject failure of their very expensive 'war on drugs'.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm wondering why first thing I heard, this all went down at 7:45 am, then they said 6:45 am.

Then I saw that Chris Hurst, the boyfriend of Allison, tweeted at 6:34 am


Is this just a Twitter glitch with the time stamp? Anyone have any thoughts?
edit on 27-8-2015 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

It's always a glitch with Twitter time stamps. I just looked at his Twitter feed and all his tweets say "23 hours ago" which would put it on the 730 time frame.

Why do people always seize on Twitter time stamps as proof of something?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: weirdeel

originally posted by: iDope

originally posted by: DarkGuardian
a reply to: old_god

Ok man, here' where I'll stop you... You might have a few valid point... to some people. But i will have to say, from experience. Those were not blanks...
The weapon apears to be a Glock 38, which is a .45, due to from the width of the weapon, it was firing live rounds due to the obvious recoil. Also, adrenaline is realeased into your body, in such a quick exert, that you inact an almost subhuman level of endurance. It does't last long, and actually deprives the body of much needed engergy and focus, that people typically die as a result of the deficit. But, she did show signs of being hit with a projectile, mulitple times too.

The truth is, people don't get shot and fall to the ground. For that very brief instant, you don't realise it, but you actually don't feel anything. You definetly feel the aftermath...

To say it was fake is completly ignorant and wrong.

If you have ever TRULY been in a situaltion where people are getting shot, then you KNOW how people react. People react in three ways, and only three way, you run, you show reaction towards the threat, or the most common, you freeze. The camera man and the woman being interviewed froze, the anchor, she fled.

Most people would love to believe that they would react in a manner to control the situation, but the fact of the matter is, they won't. They will freeze.

This obviously really happened.

It was premeditated, and executed exactly as intended, so it seems.

Try to have a good night, in light of our terrible tradgedy...


*snip* Why would noone notice this disgruntled worker walking up behind them on a wooden dock like surface? And then he points the gun at the reporter for several second seconds and even mumbles to himself before firing several seconds after, waiting for the camera man to pan onto the reporter. This is like a B movie, Terror Firmer-Lloyd Kaufman, written all over it. You cannot prove those were real shots, and they were not.


If you watch the shooters POV video, Parker does look in his direction for a split second.

0:50 - 0:51



This is a great video that you have posted!! Do you realize that at minute 1:07 where the face of the shooter is showing, do you realize that they have pasted the image of Flannigan Williams onto that minute?? Now look at the first videos that came out early on in the thread where the shooter looked Caucasian.. that is totally not the same person and this event my friends is 100% FALSE FLAG PSYOP SETTUP!!

I'm totally shrieking right now, and anyone who does not see this is BLIND!! Look at this video he has posted at minutes 1:06, 1:07 and 1:08!! The face of Flannigan Williams is totally pasted on!!



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
First of all the context in which they were speaking was about all guns being banned, not guns just being gone, poof, vanished.

I suggest before you reply next time try actually reading what was said and not interject with something that wasn't even there, you may be anti-gun but don't make up imaginary things.

You are fractally wrong by default since you didn't even read what the person said whose comments you're trying to defend.

Nice try, but no.

edit on 27-8-2015 by weirdeel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: weirdeel

She does indeed look at him, which answers my thoughts on the peripheral vision, she did see him in peripheral vision, i awoke to more strangeness today on this topic, thanks for pointing that out pal.




top topics



 
79
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join