After TV Slaying, Reporter's Dad Finds Voice on Gun Control

Speaking outside the Roanoke television station where his daughter worked, Parker said he's not against gun ownership in general, but stricter background checks are needed to keep guns away from mentally ill people. He wants to close loopholes for buying guns at gun shows. He also doesn't see why civilians need assault weapons: "Who the hell needs a machine gun to go hunt?"

He acknowledged obstacles, ranging from a lack of political will to a desensitized public.

"Each time you think there's a tipping point, with Sandy Hook or Aurora, and nothing gets done," he said.

After TV Slaying, Reporter's Dad Finds Voice on Gun Control

I was pretty sure that the slaying of a TV reporter and cameraman on live TV would cause a call for more gun restrictions. I definitely expected to see it coming from politicians. I must say I am not surprised to see it coming from the TV reporter's father. According to the article, Andy Parker is not stranger to politics. He is a former member of the Henry County Board of Supervisors and led a failed run for Democratic seat for the state legislature. It looks like he has taken a page from another Parker. I'm sure we all remember Robbie Parker's emotional plea in front of cameras for more gun control. Robbie Parker being the father of Emilie Parker, who was slain in the Sandy Hook massacre.

His calls for gun control parrot a lot of the other gun control narratives. He wants better background checks to keeps firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people. What I find shocking is that he calls for that and then says this. "I don't own a gun. We don't have a gun in our family. I'm probably going to have to get one,". Now I'm not sure, but I think if he applied for a firearm at the moment and his mental state was adressed, it might go something like this: " So... your daughter was justed murdered in cold blood by a man with a gun, are you sure you are in mental safe zone for acquiring one yourself at this moment?"

Another thing I see as agenda driven is this: His daughter was killed by a handgun. Why take it on yourself to champion the cause of banning assault rifles? He says "Who the hell needs a machine gun to go hunt?", but I don't remember her being shot by a machine gun. I believe that is just to get to the emotions of the general public at large. This seems agenda driven to me, how about you ATS?

a reply to: harvestdog

This seems agenda driven to me, how about you ATS?

This seems emotionally driven to me, this man just lost his child, of course he is going to be angry.

Guess it isn't tacky to question this guys motives since he is talking gun control.

Sorry....

I'm sick of victims like John Walsh becoming rich and famous.

Having a family member killed is absolutely horrible.

Turning it into some kind of cause...Well, it's not what I would do.

parents and family members of shooting victims are oftentimes asked to "help public awareness" campaigns, and with the large number of fatal gunshot crimes recently is a perfect example
the purpose is to get us 'the public' to give up our right to bear arms in order to prevent future sociopaths and psychopaths from committing these tragic crimes in the future and killing innocent bystanders not just targeted individuals

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm not so sure. Why bring up the bit about machine guns? I sure as hell don't remeber any recent or fairly recent killings being done with machine guns? And what about him wanting a gun now, while he is probably in an unstable emotional/ mental state, but wanting to keep guns out of the hands of metally ill people?

a reply to: blacktie

These public awareness campaigns don't need to use people when they distraught from losing their family members. Why so soon to use someone that's just lost someone. I'm sure a father that just had his daughter murdered is not going to be his stable self. Seems like disgusting exploitation to me, but I am pro 2nd and believe guns in the hands of good people outweigh the setbacks of those who would use those same guns to create mayhem.

a reply to: harvestdog

"Each time you think there's a tipping point, with Sandy Hook or Aurora, and nothing gets done,"

That's because no-one has yet come up with a workable solution to both allow gun ownership and restrict gun ownership.

and that's primarily because the US governments' modus operandi regarding private gun ownership is unacceptable to law-abiding US citizens who happen to be responsible gun owners.

a reply to: harvestdog
Has it been proven that the shooter was mentally ill?
I understand that he murdered two people and then killed himself, but was he ever under treatment for mental illness?
Was he ever in a mental hospital?
I ask because the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter was judged to be sane.... and who would have thought that?

a reply to: whyamIhere

Yeah, I'm not sure if he is trying to come up financially off of this. What I dislike is using these tragedies to stomp on our Bill of Rights.

a reply to: harvestdog

Because to the average person, an AR-15 is a machine gun. People that don't deal with guns don't understand there is a difference, and just lump everything similar into that category.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Always words of wisdom from you good sir

The right to bear arms not being infringed, and gun control measures are in direct contradiction.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: harvestdog
Has it been proven that the shooter was mentally ill?
I understand that he murdered two people and then killed himself, but was he ever under treatment for mental illness?
Was he ever in a mental hospital?
I ask because the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter was judged to be sane.... and who would have thought that?

This guy wasn't insane he was a jealous little bitch.

The dude with the orange hair playing Batman in Colorado.

He is frickin Coo Coo.

a reply to: harvestdog

what would tighter gun control accomplish in this case? The gun was bought lawfully and absent outright banning of fire arms, which I don't think would have mattered in this case either, nothing could have affected the outcome of what occurred.

The President of the United States is protected by some of the best trained and best armed body guards in the world and we have still lost presidents.


Gun control does not work.

If a person is convinced that he is going to die the next day chances are he is going to find a way to make it happen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And this is the reason I believe it is foolhardy to use these types as the face of gun control. Anyone that knows about firearms are going to look at these pleas with disdain.

intentional murder 'of any kind' (except in self defense) is still illegal here , its not just fatal gunshot wounds that need to be reviewed

but it is true we no longer live in the wild west and go out hunting animals for food and maybe dont need to be armed to go out in public like the old days

a reply to: butcherguy

You really need to educate yourself on what mental illness actually is mate, being mentally ill in no way indicates your insane! But killing yourself is basically by definition a indication of mental illness.

Anyway, its this blokes right to be able to try and talk some sense to the American public. Who cares if he knows the difference between a machine gun or a AR-15, what a ridiculous point to get all wound up about! There both very deadly weapons that there is absolutely no legitimate use for in a civilized society.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Because "the cause" John Walsh turned it into is something...what, bad? Hardly. And kindly remember that Walsh was involved in luxury real estate and management before his son was ever murdered.

@ OP - the father is lashing out. Can't lash out at the shooter, he's dead. Next best thing? Guns. He's gotta hit back at somebody. I don't see an agenda. Not yet anyway.

If you are against guns, don't get one.

But don't tell me what I can and cannot do, what I can and cannot own. If it's not infringing on your rights, you have no right to infringe on mine.

a reply to: butcherguy

Good points sir. James Holmes seemed like a whole box of fruit loops to me. He had a psychiatrist and all. Vester on the other hand does not appear to have ever been diagnosed with anything mental, nor have I found anything referencing treatment or counseling of any kind.

Seems to be the go to for people that are afraid of guns though.

More filtering out the mentally ill!! But he wasn't! SO WHAT?!?!

No more machine guns!! But he didn't use one! SO WHAT?!?!

a reply to: beezzer

But...but...

Think of the CHILDREN!