It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 54
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

(post by damingus removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:14 PM
a reply to: vor78

I think in general it would be a good idea to have general mandatory saftey courses, simular to what we do in Canada, you dont even need to register shotguns or bolt action center fire, you have a 4hr longer course for handguns and they do need to be registered.
It very well might not of changed anything here but it wouldnt hurt.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:15 PM
a reply to: FelisOrion

Based off listening to the gunshots and the nature of the shooter as a whole, I think the most likely answer is that he delivered a coup de grace to both of the deceased. And then pumped several extra bullets into one or both of them.

Frankly, I think one of them probably didn't have much of a face left.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:18 PM
a reply to: Martin75

Never mind the many of you are killed by dumbasses or how many kids per year find the gun and..for example bring it to school. Some basic training and saftey rules are nothing to fear, I would never suggest bans.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:19 PM
a reply to: damingus

I think it's amazing how people are jumping into a 50 page long thread and spewing the same nonsensical crap that was brought up 20 pages ago and debated ad nauseum as if they're somehow casting some grand revelation out there for everybody.
edit on 28-8-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:21 PM
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Again, though, specifically, what would a license/registration system check that the background check system doesn't already? Here is a link to the actual ATF form 4473 that you fill out when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. These are cross referenced with a national database when the dealer calls it in. It actually covers pretty much everything.

There are some issues with violations not being reported into the system, but that doesn't indicate that the system itself is faulty, but rather that the reporting regulations on state and local law enforcement and mental health authorities need to be tightened.

And no system will ever be 100% foolproof, anyway. With 20 million background checks per year, unfortunately, its inevitably going to miss a few no matter what you do.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:22 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Jade Helm 15?!

Or is it the usual everything is fake stuff?
Haven't been following the thread closely.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

It's stupendously amazing..Im amazed I spelled stupendously right on the 1st go, see how the mind numbs.
Here is a fact..truth is stranger than fiction.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:26 PM
so, it seems a few people are agreeing with me now that this incident does indeed look strangE!

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: vonclod

I'm not entirely opposed to it, though I do have the same concerns about it that I do with licensing/registration and the potential for misuse and abuse to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own firearms. That being said, most, if not all states already require hunters to pass a hunter's education course before they issue their license. You have to do that at age 16 in my state.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:29 PM

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
a reply to: Siddharta

To be perfectly fair it isn't what all Americans think either. Not by a long shot.

Hehe. Yes, sorry, I was generalizing too much. After all I still come here to see what people on your side of the pond think. And I am always glad to see people like you write.

Sadly the "They only staged this to take away my gun"-people are still streaming in. Here in Europe we have to deal with "The refugees only drown in the Mediterranean to rape our wives and daughters"-people. Similar string of thought.

(post by recapitulated removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:30 PM
a reply to: MystikMushroom

a reply to: tigertatzen

It almost didn't seem real to me, in that we assume things like this just don't happen in real life.

People aren't that calm, cold, and calculating in real life, right? There wasn't any gore to gross me out, but the feeling I was left with was worse, a deep unsettled feeling. The fact that someone could stew over some work issues long enough to plan and carry out an ambush like this -- in such a cold and calculated way disturbed me greatly.

That was NOT the first thing I wanted to see in the morning when I was checking my phone after pulling my pants on.

I think another reason it disturbed me so much is because it put me in the POV of the shooter. I didn't like how it made me feel, to view things as they saw them.

You stated that perfectly; I think the entire thing was even more chilling and horrific because of the stark lack of gore, "blood and guts" that would normally be the expectation in a shooting. And yes, the POV of the shooter as well...almost making his audience complicit in the crime. Interactive murder. He knew it too...he was a reporter, so he knew how to make the most impact on his prospective audience. He had no intention of going to jail, so he had to make it count. Everything was calculated...coldly and calmly.

It takes a whole lot to really scare me. And I was rattled badly by this...the proximity to me yes, it was far too close for comfort, but more than that was the manner in which it was carried out. That still grab from the camera guy's is the stuff of nightmares.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: Sremmos80

The same recycled garbage from any other shooting.

We didn't see geysers of blood. Nobody did the funky chicken. People didn't react the way "we" think they should have. Can't be as simple as a guy got pissed off enough to kill somebody. Blah blah blah.

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:49 PM
a reply to: vonclod

I'm 100% FOR training. I took a safety course before buying my first gun, even though I was raised around them. They are NOT toys and need to be handled with care and sense. I think that training should be mandatory!

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:53 PM
a reply to: Sremmos80

Just the same ol same ol, although I haven't seen Jade Helm yet ( I mighta missed it).

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:55 PM
a reply to: vor78

Again, though, specifically, what would a license/registration system check that the background check system doesn't already?

Well, I suppose it would all depend on what you had to do to obtain the license.

In Australia you have to have some kind of respected member of the community (who isn't a family member) officially vouch that your a stable person, which obviously would have prevented this shooting from ever occurring.

But obviously regulations as strict as Australia are simply never going to happen in the US, so its kind of a mute point. Never the less, Canada's less strict regulations do seem more realistic for the US and obviously do prevent these kind of things from happening, since Canada isn't having these kind of shootings every damn week. I'm quite sure mental illness exists in Canada too, so obviously just blaming mental illness is a flawed argument.... since its not not like mental illness is exclusive to the United States, lol.

Either way, the whole thing was surreal, to be honest. I was just flicking though this thread the other night, clicked on a twitter link someone posted and there was that pov video of this lunatic calmly shooting this young chick.... you could see the shock and pure fear in her eyes in extreme detail. Goddamn blew my mind!

I'm just happy I live in a place where its near impossible for lunatics like that to obtain a gun, that's all I'm saying
edit on 28-8-2015 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:02 PM
a reply to: Crowdpsychology

I see this behavior often in forums. ”You can’t say that” ”That is very insensitive to say or to speculate about” ”Let the family mourn in peace” Or whatever the line might be. But this line of thought and generally despised behavior doesn’t bother me, I know what I do is backed by the search of the truth. Something both me, a victim, family or affected population logically would want to be entitled to.

It’s one thing to own one of US’s biggest newspapers and print my own speculative theories and indirectly make all people take them in, And it’s another to write them in a forum involving conspiracies. Oneself seeks to take in alternative information, not the other way around.

But I do apologize if something in my initial comment have been a repetition of what many other have stated in the past 40+ pages, and which could be seen as pushing a certain line of thought. That is not my intention.

On the contrary, I didn't find it repetitive at all. It was actually a very good synopsis...perhaps natural for you as a journalist, but you managed to condense pages and pages of chaos into a cohesive order while still adding your own thoughts and observations to the mix. Objectivity and critical thinking are of utmost importance here (and really, from here on out), and I personally think you did it beautifully. Things are rarely entirely as they seem, so it makes sense to question everything, right?

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:35 PM

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Sremmos80

The same recycled garbage from any other shooting.

We didn't see geysers of blood. Nobody did the funky chicken. People didn't react the way "we" think they should have. Can't be as simple as a guy got pissed off enough to kill somebody. Blah blah blah.

Just to clarify my own position....I'm of the opinion that there was an actual shooting and people died. If anything, the absence of bloody and dramatic stuff, makes it appear to me, as much more likely to have happened, rather than being staged, by actors and the like.

But, that doesn't mean the guy was not "pushed" by some outside entity in to acting on his calculated impulses. Nor does it mean that the very same agenda the mainstream media is always "normalize" gun registration will not be followed. And since the conversation has gotten this far along now, there are perfectly good reasons to mistrust, even the seemingly simple "safety measure" of registration. Why does the CDC consider gun violence a disease? Why are doctors asking patients about guns in their homes, even those of family members? Why did the Feds contrary to the actual law, keep data on people about their guns, and fail to purge it as dictated by the law?

Why is there so much linking in recent years to mental health questions, in the media? Now that your medical records are available to any government agency who wants them, thanks to HIPAA, individual doctors, nurses, and other health workers can be effectively threatened with their livelihoods for talking to anyone, even the person's family about their health, while at the same time, medical records are being compiled and accessible to bureaucrats who have nothing to do with patient care?

Once it is accepted by the majority, that people with mental health issues can be legally prevented from owning guns, what is to prevent more creep in that? Ever been diagnosed with a mild depression and prescribed mood elevators or sleeping pills? Congratulations! You are now a danger to everyone and can be stripped of your 2nd Amendment rights.

People that think the Framer's intent was about hunting...or even about individuals protecting themselves and their families from criminals...have probably not read the Federalist Papers. Having an armed citizenry was supposed to be both a means of having a protection from outside forces invading our young nation....which is what a Militia ad hoc, non-standing army ready to go without formal costs and organization. But, also and equally important, the means of leaving the real power in the hands of the People, to overcome our own government, should it become necessary.

Our protection by being armed, does not come from whether or not a rifle can overcome a tank. It comes from the fact that in the absence of an armed populace, Military Commanders would most likely follow orders on rounding up people and moving them, if there were some good pretext for it....say a disaster or something...because they don't want to lose their job as an Officer. Most of these people are good, and will do what they believe to be the best thing. In the face of an armed populace though, the equation changes.

These same guys, faced with the prospect of having their own men shot at by civilians, or their men perhaps having to shoot armed civilians, will be far more likely to consider if it was a "Lawful Order" which they are compelled by oath to DISobey. At some point, it will be kicked up the chain of command far enough, that someone will place their career on the line in one direction or the other. We saw this play out in Nevada a little more than a year ago, did we not, with the Bundy Ranch thing?

There are many many many small, and seemingly unconnected steps to moving an entire populations' minds and hearts. And the techniques have been around for many many years....go read the official Military Manuals for Psy-Ops. They are almost all available on-line. Read some Rand Corporation papers.

Little of this has to do with this particular incident, other than it will be used by the Media, in their capacity as opinion-shapers toward a particular agenda. But, I thought that since we have gone to the gun rights discussion here, that I would attempt to get a little meta to the situation at hand. Contexts, large and small, are always important. And everything is a situation.

The FBI has admitted that all the dozen or so "terrorist" incidents that they have "prevented", were actually patsies that they set up to do things, that those people would most likely not have done on their own. Why would someone think that there is may not be good reason, to institutionally mistrust our own government?
edit on 28-8-2015 by Enderdog because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:39 PM

originally posted by: kamatty

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Needing to go though a licensing process is clearly an effective deterrent
If you want to see some serious gun violence, then just try to take our guns away.

We see it everyday, every week, every year. Are you suggesting you would use violence worse than what we have already seen if someone tried to take your guns away? Does that seem sane to you?

Defending my liberty is very sane.

new topics

top topics

<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in