Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

US Journalists shot dead live on air [MOD WARNING in opening post]

1…1011131516…20

Comments

  • #362
    dutopia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭dutopia


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    That's total crap. We don't allow drugs but people here in Ireland seem to have no problem getting drugs.

    If you ban guns, that doesn't get rid of them. It just makes them illegal.

    You're using a false analogy.

    Can you get a handgun or semi-automatic assault rifle as easy as drugs in Ireland?


  • #363
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I think we need someone to rattle up some definitions around descriptions like automatic, semi automatic and "assault rifle".

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #364
    strelok
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭strelok


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I think we need someone to rattle up some definitions around descriptions like automatic, semi automatic and "assault rifle".

    just go with whichever one seems scarier


  • #365
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I think we need someone to rattle up some definitions around descriptions like automatic, semi automatic and "assault rifle".

    Automatic rifles or pistols are illegal in Ireland under civillian ownership.
    Automatic rifles keep firing bullets until either the magazine is empty or the trigger is released. This fires lots of bullets really quickly. A fully automatic rifle is usually a military firearm.

    Semi-automatic rifles/pistols are allowed here in Ireland under certain circumstances. Target shooting being one circumstance where you can own them.
    Semi-automatic means that a single bullet is fired each time the trigger is pulled/squeezed until the magazine is empty.

    As far as I'm aware, there's no actual definition of an assault rifle in Irish law.

    The Gardai seem to go by the "Idon'tlikethelookofthat" rule when deciding if something is an assault rifle or not.

    Personally, I'd go with the view that if it's fully automatic, then it's probably an assault rifle.


  • #366
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    dutopia wrote: »
    You're using a false analogy.

    Can you get a handgun or semi-automatic assault rifle as easy as drugs in Ireland?


    I reckon I could get drugs if I wanted. Semi-auto assault rifle or handgun, I reckon that would be more difficult, but probably do-able.

    Criminals seem to be able to get their hands on them.

    My point is, making something illegal doesn't necessarily get rid of it.

    Drugs are illegal and we haven't gotten rid of them. Guns are illegal unless you have a licence from the state yet criminals are able to get their hands on them.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    dutopia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭dutopia


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I reckon I could get drugs if I wanted. Semi-auto assault rifle or handgun, I reckon that would be more difficult, but probably do-able.

    Criminals seem to be able to get their hands on them.

    My point is, making something illegal doesn't necessarily get rid of it.

    Drugs are illegal and we haven't gotten rid of them. Guns are illegal unless you have a licence from the state yet criminals are able to get their hands on them.

    Yeah, criminals can get their hands on them - and it probably isn't even that easy for them. Point is: For normal Joe Soaps it is very difficult to get a gun illegally, you'd probably have to get involved in a criminal organisation to get one - and how many people are willing to get into that? Drugs on the other hand are much easier to get and less risky with less involvement.

    Your point about making some illegal doesn't necessarily get rid of is perfectly valid, I just had a issue comparing the availability of illegal drugs and illegal guns.


  • #368
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    dutopia wrote: »
    For normal Joe Soaps it is very difficult to get a gun illegally, you'd probably have to get involved in a criminal organisation to get one - and how many people are willing to get into that?

    Someone willing to shoot a number of people live on air and to actually post a video showing the murder on their own fb/twitter feed would probably be willing to get into that.


  • #369
    dutopia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭dutopia


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Someone willing to shoot a number of people live on air and to actually post a video showing the murder on their own fb/twitter feed would probably be willing to get into that.

    Or just walk into a gun store and buy it?


  • #370
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    dutopia wrote: »
    Or just walk into a gun store and buy it?


    That makes it easier alright.


  • #371
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,424 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Dry Rain wrote: »
    Are there any proven holes in my opinion? Has anyone proven that the shooter wasn't hired? This is going to sound ridiculous but the CIA have been involved in some dodgy sh*t. If Islam extremists can convince a person to be a suicide bomber and kill many people including themselves then I'm sure the CIA (who have admitted to studying mind control and that sort of stuff) could have easily brainwashed the shooter.

    I'm just spitting out random conspiracy theory crap now so I'll just get to the point.

    I viewed the footage recorded by both cameras. Saw no one dying. Closely inspected them for bullets. Didn't see any. Realised that the shooter's suicide note was completely bonkers.
    I'd like to add one more thing. The cameraman's camera stays very still even though someone is firing a gun right beside the cameraman who is holding it. It suddenly falls straight down like 5 seconds after the shooting starts. You might say that the camera was mounted on a stand. I'd then point out that if it was, it would have been securely attached to it, meaning that the stand would have to fall over, bringing the camera further away from where the cameraman was standing, but no. It just falls straight down after a few seconds.

    Maybe the shooting did happen. But for now, I'm not convinced. I've stated my reasons for believing so. Please criticize my opinion, not me.

    Dry Rain, you were told to stop with the conspiracy theories. Not only did you ignore this, you went on to ask other users to wager on a double murder:
    Dry Rain wrote: »
    I'm just going to give up amusing you all.

    If you're confident, I'm willing to wager €10,000 that this is fake. PM me if you're interested. I'll hire a lawyer and we'll meet up. Don't waste my ****ing time though.

    Don't post in this thread again.

    Everyone else, please don't quote or reply to his posts. I've deleted all the conspiracy theories and replies after the mod warning.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    RayCon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,046 ✭✭✭RayCon


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    There is Make the price of bullets for public use 500 dollars per bullet.

    Chris Rock says hello


  • #373
    Notavirus.exe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 832 ✭✭✭Notavirus.exe


    Why has this discussion turned into a debate on how to solve gun problems? If that guy wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, I'm sure he'd use another weapon.

    Barack Obama believes that this shooting just goes to show that they need better gun control. No it doesn't. The man shot them because he was supposedly bullied by them at work for being black and gay. It just goes to show yet again that blacks and homosexuals aren't treated as equal as whites and heterosexuals. That kind of stuff happening at work could drive anyone to kill. I find it revolting that anyone as high up as the president can believe that gun control would solve this. Barack Obama should have encouraged people to come forward if they are being treated like that at work. I'm not saying that what that man did to those journalists was justifiable, I'm saying it could have been preventable.


  • #374
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,766 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    Why has this discussion turned into a debate on how to solve gun problems? If that guy wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, I'm sure he'd use another weapon.

    Barack Obama believes that this shooting just goes to show that they need better gun control. No it doesn't. The man shot them because he was supposedly bullied by them at work for being black and gay. It just goes to show yet again that blacks and homosexuals aren't treated as equal as whites and heterosexuals. That kind of stuff happening at work could drive anyone to kill. I find it revolting that anyone as high up as the president can believe that gun control would solve this. Barack Obama should have encouraged people to come forward if they are being treated like that at work. I'm not saying that what that man did to those journalists was justifiable, I'm saying it could have been preventable.

    And you know for a fact he was bullied and harassed at work how?


  • #375
    custard gannet
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭custard gannet


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    And you know for a fact he was bullied and harassed at work how?

    Because he was black and gay, duh. :pac:


  • #376
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,666 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    Why has this discussion turned into a debate on how to solve gun problems? If that guy wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, I'm sure he'd use another weapon.

    Barack Obama believes that this shooting just goes to show that they need better gun control. No it doesn't. The man shot them because he was supposedly bullied by them at work for being black and gay. It just goes to show yet again that blacks and homosexuals aren't treated as equal as whites and heterosexuals. That kind of stuff happening at work could drive anyone to kill. I find it revolting that anyone as high up as the president can believe that gun control would solve this.
    Wow. So just when we move away from "I don't think they were killed at all - it's a conspiracy", we get to what's dangerously close to "You know what - maybe they deserved it"

    Being "supposedly" bullied could "drive anyone to kill"?

    That's a very ignorant comment, in my opinion.


  • #377
    inforfun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    Why has this discussion turned into a debate on how to solve gun problems? If that guy wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, I'm sure he'd use another weapon.

    Barack Obama believes that this shooting just goes to show that they need better gun control. No it doesn't. The man shot them because he was supposedly bullied by them at work for being black and gay. It just goes to show yet again that blacks and homosexuals aren't treated as equal as whites and heterosexuals. That kind of stuff happening at work could drive anyone to kill. I find it revolting that anyone as high up as the president can believe that gun control would solve this. Barack Obama should have encouraged people to come forward if they are being treated like that at work. I'm not saying that what that man did to those journalists was justifiable, I'm saying it could have been preventable.

    Just a little detail... The Killer said he was being bullied because he was black and gay.

    And gun control probably would not have mattered much in this case.
    It probably does matter in cases where people act on impulse.


  • #378
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    It just goes to show yet again that blacks and homosexuals aren't treated as equal as whites and heterosexuals.

    What an absurd statement to make in context to this case, news is coming out that this man was highly volatile and very difficult to work with. Why would you make this into something about racism towards black people and homophobia, you'd swear black or gay people could do no wrong and that their criminal actions were because of white people.

    The cameraman he shot and killed, as he mentioned in a Twitter post afterwards, went to HR about him after working with him one time.

    That's such a fúckin' stupid and pointless reason to kill someone.


  • #379
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    There's an amazing amount of people that have suffered bullying and don't actually shoot the place up. It's still a choice, and I have no sympathy for him on that.

    OK, I'm going back to the ever-dangerous racism angle. I said earlier that I thought it was too early to call the actions of a clearly disturbed man a racist crime, but further confirmation has happened, so grando!

    However...there is still something very peculiar about it all. I'm hazarding here, so you can consider this rubbish if you want, but it looks rather to me that this guy...almost -wanted- to be persecuted. He reacted very strongly to the Charleston shootings and bought and registered his gun right after, considering his own shooting as vengeance for the victims. He repeatedly tried to sue for racism in his own life, and none of the charges were ever upheld. Other people, including a Black producer, have said that no, nothing of the sort ever happened; they were a closely knit team, although Williams (to use his TV name) was "difficult to work with". I strongly get the impression that he expected and kinda -wanted- some racist bullying so he'd have an excuse for his hate beyond general anger.

    A bloody strange and sad case, and three people are dead, and another severely wounded (the woman being interviewed, who fortunately is recovering well). I don't know what this means as regards racism in the US (black on white or white on black), or even gun control, but to me, this screams most loudly of a serious mental disturbance. I do believe that the US needs stronger gun control, but I also reckon that, in this specific case, if he hadn't been able to get a gun, he'd have used a bomb or a knife.


  • #380
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    Why has this discussion turned into a debate on how to solve gun problems? If that guy wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, I'm sure he'd use another weapon.

    Barack Obama believes that this shooting just goes to show that they need better gun control. No it doesn't. The man shot them because he was supposedly bullied by them at work for being black and gay. It just goes to show yet again that blacks and homosexuals aren't treated as equal as whites and heterosexuals. That kind of stuff happening at work could drive anyone to kill. I find it revolting that anyone as high up as the president can believe that gun control would solve this. Barack Obama should have encouraged people to come forward if they are being treated like that at work. I'm not saying that what that man did to those journalists was justifiable, I'm saying it could have been preventable.

    I'd suggest that the only thing that this case shows is mental illness.

    "He had trouble working with fellow employees and he had a short fuse.” Marks denied the lawsuit’s allegations of racial animus.
    In the suit, which was dismissed in 2014, Flanagan professed to have photos of a watermelon that he said appeared during a meeting with photographers. “The watermelon would appear, then disappear, then appear and disappear again, only to appear yet again,” he wrote. He urged the judge to pick a jury of his peers — which he defined as African American women."

    "............precise motive for the killings remained elusive Wednesday, although Flanagan apparently offered a broad spectrum of grievances in a 22-page suicide note that ABC News said it received by fax two hours after the shooting. The document reads more like a rant, contradictory and paradoxical, extolling mass killers, blaming his father for not being there after he was fired from a job in Florida on one page but praising him for his support on another. It ex­presses hatred for black males and white females whom he said he was “attacked by” but claims that the nine African Americans killed in the Charleston church shooting was his breaking point, writing that he put a deposit on a gun two days after the massacre."


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/suspect-identified-in-shootings-of-va-reporter-camerman/2015/08/26/f1724618-4c05-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html?tid=sm_fb


  • #381
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    Why has this discussion turned into a debate on how to solve gun problems? If that guy wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, I'm sure he'd use another weapon.

    Barack Obama believes that this shooting just goes to show that they need better gun control. No it doesn't. The man shot them because he was supposedly bullied by them at work for being black and gay. It just goes to show yet again that blacks and homosexuals aren't treated as equal as whites and heterosexuals. That kind of stuff happening at work could drive anyone to kill. I find it revolting that anyone as high up as the president can believe that gun control would solve this. Barack Obama should have encouraged people to come forward if they are being treated like that at work. I'm not saying that what that man did to those journalists was justifiable, I'm saying it could have been preventable.
    It was easy to prevent. Unfortunately the easiest method seems to have missed you totally. The man shot them because he had a gun.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    It was easy to prevent. Unfortunately the easiest method seems to have missed you totally. The man shot them because he had a gun.
    Look, without a gun he could have had a knife. Without a knife he could have had a hammer. Without a hammer he could have had petrol and a lighter etc etc. The guy was a psycho and he was going to do something no matter what weapon he could find.


  • #383
    custard gannet
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭custard gannet


    Is the statement online, in full? Much like the video I prefer to actually view the original than be told by the news that it exists. Tried googling but got nothing.


  • #384
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    smash wrote: »
    Look, without a gun he could have had a knife. Without a knife he could have had a hammer. Without a hammer he could have had petrol and a lighter etc etc. The guy was a psycho and he was going to do something no matter what weapon he could find.

    Oh yes that old chestnut that gets played every time.


  • #385
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    It was easy to prevent. Unfortunately the easiest method seems to have missed you totally. The man shot them because he had a gun.


    Nope, it wouldn't be easy to prevent occurrences such as this.

    Yes, if the man didn't have a gun, then he couldn't have shot them with a gun. But if he wanted a gun, he would get one from somewhere. And if he couldn't get a gun, he could have used a spear or a bow and arrow etc. etc. He could have burned them in their beds while they slept.

    My point is that you can't always predict when someone will go "postal" and kill a load of co-workers etc.

    And if somebody has their mind bent on murder, they'll usually find a way.


  • #386
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Oh yes that old chestnut that gets played every time.

    Because it's true.


  • #387
    custard gannet
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭custard gannet


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Because it's true.

    Do you have any idea how more likely you are to die from a bullet wound than a stab wound? Do you know how many more people you an attack with a gun before a bystander takes you down compared to how many you could get through with a knife?


  • #388
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Nope, it wouldn't be easy to prevent occurrences such as this.

    Yes, if the man didn't have a gun, then he couldn't have shot them with a gun. But if he wanted a gun, he would get one from somewhere. And if he couldn't get a gun, he could have used a spear or a bow and arrow etc. etc. He could have burned them in their beds while they slept.

    My point is that you can't always predict when someone will go "postal" and kill a load of co-workers etc.

    And if somebody has their mind bent on murder, they'll usually find a way.

    Having guns so easy to obtain and that it leads to so many mass shootings is only a coincidence. Murder isnt hard in Murica. But sure I'm certain that Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech etc would have happened identically without a gun. Sure firing a bullet from distance is the same as using a knife/spear. Sure isnt that why the police use crossbows and bayonets. Guns aren't effective & fast killing weapons.


  • #389
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Oh yes that old chestnut that gets played every time.

    Maybe because it's true?


  • #390
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Because it's true.
    smash wrote: »
    Maybe because it's true?



    A bullet can pass through 2 people if the range/calibre/bullet/trajectory is correct. Do you think a throwing knife can kill two people with one throw?

    Do you think you can chase and slash as many victims as you could while standing still and allowing the bullets do the chasing?

    Its clear more than one person learned Physics from Darwin.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Having guns so easy to obtain and that it leads to so many mass shootings is only a coincidence. Murder isnt hard in Murica. But sure I'm certain that Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech etc would have happened identically without a gun. Sure firing a bullet from distance is the same as using a knife/spear. Sure isnt that why the police use crossbows and bayonets. Guns aren't effective & fast killing weapons.

    I have five guns. All licenced. I haven't shot up a school or murdered any co-workers. I'm in a club with over 300 members and none of them have shot up a school or murdered any co-workers either. We take part in a sport. If we misuse our firearms or behave aggressively etc., then the Gardai take them from us. I have absolutely no problem with that.

    Yes, guns can kill people more efficiently than bows and arrows, knives etc. I'm not debating that point.

    My point simply is that if Vester Flanagan was so hell bent on killing somebody in revenge for his percieved grievance, then he would have found a way.

    Here's a question.

    Who do you blame for the killing?

    Is it Vester Flanagan's fault or is it the guns fault?


Advertisement
Advertisement