You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The footage makes it look like one presenter and the camera(person).
You don't actually see anything, just sound and the camera falling to the ground.
I read the news too
'yikes' + link = crossposting = spam. IMHO
TOGTFO
you surely have something better to offer than just 'yikes' - or were you rushing to post the link before someone else did resulting in a second rate thread that is closed early under duplication.
Just as the camera drops you can see the potential gun man. Why? What is wrong with people...
The guy was wearing a go pro. He put the video online. 😐
If only the crew were armed with their own guns for self protection.
grim.
Crazy. Sadly another example of a dissatisfied employee killing colleagues.
soobalias - Member'yikes' + link = crossposting = spam. IMHO
TOGTFO
you surely have something better to offer than just 'yikes' - or were you rushing to post the link before someone else did resulting in a second rate thread that is closed early under duplication.
Whereas your post adds so much to the discussion? 😉
Reports on CNN state the shooter has shot himself.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/
soobalias - Member
'yikes' + link = crossposting = spam. IMHOTOGTFO
you surely have something better to offer than just 'yikes' - or were you rushing to post the link before someone else did resulting in a second rate thread that is closed early under duplication.
What a dickish post
I think soobalias is mad because he was the 'someone else' about to post this.
To be fair, he's got a point in that posting a URL with no other content is getting pretty tedious now.
That said, the time to raise such concerns is probably not immediately following the announcement that two people have been murdered.
Ho hum.
if only the crew were armed with their own guns for self protection.
Not sure if that's serious or not, but they didn't even seem to realise he was there until he'd opened fire. I doubt it would have made any difference, sadly.
Title plus link plus one word comment.
Seems fair enough to me.
I got into shit in early September 2001 on bikemagic when I linked a new story and posted something whilst forgetting I was logged in as Jon Doran, one word comments sometimes safer while I check who I'm logged in as 😉
To be fair, he's got a point in that posting a URL with no other content is getting pretty tedious now.
One of the things I like about this forum is that it does have a community feel about it. There is banter, in jokes and bickering. And, like any community, when something interesting, or relevant, or shocking or annoying happens it's brought to the attention of the rest of the community, so it can be bantered about, or bickered over, or used as a prompt or in jokes. That's how these things work, isn't it?
Who?
Go 'Merica! With depressing regularity their gun laws are shown to be stupid beyond comprehension.
[url= https://twitter.com/Rsherlock ]A friend of mine in a journalist, who's on the scene[/url] of where the shooter was arrested, only after he shot himself though.
I wonder how many more high profile gun crimes need to happen before something get's done about it. Shocking situation 🙁
2 US TV Journalists Shot Dead On Air is a bigger story than 50 people found dead on a ship in the Mediterranean....I am really starting to dislike the term migrant. No back stories on those poor souls, just a set of numbers to add to this year's tally 🙁
Not sure gun control would have stopped this one. If someone is hell bent on killing someone like this over a personal grudge then they will find a way to do it. This wasn't a random murder.
If only the crew were armed with their own guns for self protection.
I'm sure a spokesman from the NRA will be along to say that the solution is "more guns."
[b]Not sure gun control would have stopped this one.[/b] If someone is hell bent on killing someone like this over a personal grudge then they will find a way to do it. This wasn't a random murder.
I think you'll find that you're wrong.
Agree to disagree.
Well, per head of capita i'm sure the UK has just as many nutters as any other country you care to mention, especially the US, and there are probably as many people out there with murderous tendencies/thoughts about work colleagues and other people. It makes their fantasies a lot easier to achieve, and therefore more tempting, if they can get their hands on an Uzi 9mm as easily as they can a loaf of bread. The prospect of stabbing someone to death or bludgeoning them to death with a blunt weapon is far more tricky and difficult to achieve.
I think you'll find that you're wrong.
Really? Was gun control or lack of it the reason for some US servicemen having to beat unconscious an individual with an AK, 270 rounds of ammunition, complimented with a pistol and stanley knife?
Just think how many more bullets would have been flying around if half the passengers on the train had guns too? They would have probably shot the US servicemen before they got a chance to deal with the actual shooter.
@wobbliscott, totally agree. My point is that gun control is not going to prevent all attacks, it may reduce them. Just look at that kid from Newcastle who used the Dark Web to buy weapons and IED components to go on a spree with.
The knee jerk gun control argument is tired, just the same as more civilians should have guns. Crazy people will usually find a way to kill.
Really? Was gun control or lack of it the reason for some US servicemen having to beat unconscious an individual with an AK, 270 rounds of ammunition, complimented with a pistol and stanley knife?
Really? That the argument for the defence? 😆
How many more incedents would there be if there was no gun control? In the UK we have gun control, but hardly anywhere near the number of random killings as in the USA, but we still have killings as no matter how much control there is we know that people will always find a way around the control.
Do you believe that removing gun control in the UK would leave the number of gun deaths at exactly the same levels we have now, or do you think there would be an increase?
That goes to the pre-edit LHS too.
EDIT: Do you think that this feller would have been able to get close enough to kill two people today if he was only armed with a breadkinife?
Really? Was gun control or lack of it the reason for some US servicemen having to beat unconscious an individual with an AK, 270 rounds of ammunition, complimented with a pistol and stanley knife?
Three unarmed men stop a nutter with a gun.
You couldn't make it up.
God that's grim
I'm not saying that, but how many people go banzai with legally owned weapons vs those with illegally owned weapons? People use the UK, and Island with pretty well enforced borders as an example, the US has a huge land mass beneath it with a huge quantity of illegal weapons that are moved over the border in a variety of pretty sophisticated ways.
2012 I was lucky enough to spend a day with the US Border Patrol in El Centro, Southern California. Absolutely mental what crosses that border. It made me realise how difficult it is to smuggle weapons into the UK. Compared to the US we're pretty safe.
As for the knife question, totally. Or if not he could have picked another moment to strike. Depends on the level of crazy. I personally wouldn't choose a bread knife. The length is good to damage internal organs, but with no point it would require a fair amount of force to pierce clothing and skin. But you can buy a variety of fairly evil looking knives over the counter these days.
People speak as if there's no Gun control at all in America.
There's all sorts of federal restrictions on firearms, plus state ones - Virginia being the 20th most strict state firearms laws in the US, and a slightly lower than average gun death rate.
Those guys saw an opportunity, nutter had a stoppage so they charged him. Total respect to them, they took a calculated risk and it paid off. Did have a giggle at the mobile phone footage of the attacker hogtied in the aisle with is weapons unloaded and cleared. Good drills on the part of all four guys who dealt with him.
The approach to attempted hijacking or shootings has changed since September 2011. You stand up and go for the attacker. The first 20 may well die or be wounded but the other 50 to 200 will get the man. Stalin had it right with "numbers have a quality of their own" .
Sandwich, I wish I had your faith in people to do that.
ninfan - MemberPeople speak as if there's no Gun control at all in America.
I have never heard anyone claim that there are no gun controls in the US. There is however a widespread belief that there is insufficient gun control in the US.
This belief is shared by the present President of the United States who will have been fully briefed with regards to the legal status of guns.
[i]"If you ask me where is the one area where I feel that I have been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient, common sense, gun safety laws," Obama said. "Even in the face of repeated mass killings."[/i]
[url= http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/obama-gun-laws-louisiana-shooting/ ]Obama's biggest frustration: Gun laws[/url]
Not trying to play down the sad news but if a person is going to kill s/he will kill regardless. In this case, a former employee has gone crazy ...
Yes, guns might make it easier to carry out his/her intention but knife/machete would do the job too with a surprise attack.
hmmm ... I wonder where did that French train shooter got his AK47 from ... hhmmm ...
Put it this way if someone is going to shoot at me I sure want to shoot back ... we can debate about the rest later once the shooting is over. Dead or alive.
That is the Merica way of life so that should be that.
In BritLand you have your way of life so that should be that if you prefer not to bear arms.
😯
'yikes' + link = crossposting = spam. IMHO
I agree that it's poor form.
In BritLand you have your way of life so that should be that if you prefer not to bear arms.
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ]Gun Deaths Per 100,000 population per year[/url]:
United States: 10.64
BritLand: 0.26
Yeah I'm happy enough with our approach thanks!
GrahamS - MemberIn BritLand you have your way of life so that should be that if you prefer not to bear arms.
Gun Deaths Per 100,000 population per year:United States: 10.64
BritLand: 0.26
Yeah I'm happy enough with our approach thanks!
It's the nature's way of keeping in check the world population if you are willing to see it in another way.
Let's hope you will fight back when your life or those of your family are under threat.
You can rationalise the origin of mankind and violence later one ...
chewkw you need to go and live in America.
You could sleep (and masturbate) with a Bernoulli M7 every night and we'd get a good 5 hours before you post. I'd recommend the west coast though if you're planning on doing it.
Yes, guns might make it easier to carry out his/her intention but knife/machete would do the job too with a surprise attack.
Psychologically, its far harder to kill someone with a knife and also much more difficult to take down multiple targets in one attack. Close quarter armed combat is a completely different prospect than simply blatting off a few rounds from 100yds away.
deadlydarcy - Member
chewkw you need to go and live in America.You could sleep (and masturbate) with a Bernoulli M7 every night and we'd get a good 5 hours before you post. I'd recommend the west coast though if you're planning on doing it.
Too late, too old ... they don't me.
crazy-legs - MemberYes, guns might make it easier to carry out his/her intention but knife/machete would do the job too with a surprise attack.Psychologically, its far harder to kill someone with a knife and also much more difficult to take down multiple targets in one attack. Close quarter armed combat is a completely different prospect than simply blatting off a few rounds from 100yds away.
True, true ... but in this case it's not 100 yards away but arm length away.
Let's hope you will fight back when your life or those of your family are under threat.
Of course I would - that's a silly thing to say.
Being happy with gun control doesn't mean that I am against protecting my family. In fact that's the main reason I am [i]for[/i] it!
GrahamS - Member
Let's hope you will fight back when your life or those of your family are under threat.Of course I would - that's a silly thing to say.
Being happy with gun control doesn't mean that I am against protecting my family. In fact that's the main reason I am for it!
Yes, in BritLand I agree.
In Merica that's a different story.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
My understanding of this is that didn't mean every George, Jeb and Cletus have the right to shoot whoever they may or may not think is about to steal their pickup, with a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute. If you want to live by something over two hundred years old try arming yourself with something of a similar vintage. I know which I'd rather take my chances against.
EDIT: Do you think that this feller would have been able to get close enough to kill two people today if he was only armed with a breadkinife?
Judging by the perp's own camera footage, he could just as easily have used a machete, one good swing would have taken out the reporter and the cameraman, another the interviewee, a couple more to finish the job.
Would have been pretty quiet, too; no gunshots to alert anyone.
And he was a crap shot, too; seven or eight shots to kill two people a metre or so away?
I wouldn't, I know a few guys that could take your head off with an old musket or rifle at a good 100m+. 😉
Keep guns for killing small tasty animals? Fine.
Spend time in the backwoods of Montana and need one for defense against bears etc? Fine.
Keep a Desert Eagle in your bedside drawer for "home defense"? You're a batshitmentalist.
American gun culture scares me, and I'm pro gun ownership! (For the aforementioned tasty animal purpose, or target/clay shooting). Once saw a couple of young men in a "sports" shop in Tennessee comparing handguns, including a Desert Eagle, by posing with them in the mirror. Yep. A mirror in the gun department. One said, while posing, "I think this one is more me". Wish I'd repeatedly punched him. And then kicked him.
And he was a crap shot, too
According to the news he shot himself but is still alive.
So yeah, crap shot!
@Flash, no need for such a hand cannon. My dad swore by his 1911 when we lived in SA for a while. That and his Remington in the car.
I've grown up around weapons of various sizes and have used them whilst serving, never felt the need to own one in the UK though. However hypothetically, if there was a lifting of restrictions and more people had access, I may change my mind.
Thing is with shooting people, unless you drill and drill and drill, you'll be all over the place, more so if you're a little bit mental. Once the adrenaline starts pumping rounds go bloody everywhere. The reality is most people wouldn't have the time to develop that kind of discipline, so the comment about passengers being armed on the French train, it would have been carnage if a bunch of people pulled out handguns and started shooting.
Interesting thing I read about the second amendment, it's there to protect people from federal interference. the states can impose the rules they see fit. So if they say you can only own a single shot .22, best suck it up.
@graham suicides skew those figures quite a lot
@Graham he was reported dead hours ago.
You can't take guns away from Americans, there are already far too many in circulation. If you try you'll just take the guns away from the average legal owner and all the illegally held weapons will remain.
Plenty of countries have guns in widespread ownership like Canada and Switzerland which don't see the same levels of gun crime. It's a more complex problem than just the guns
He is dead and has been for a few hours
Why would anyone watch the footage let alone the gunmans footage ?
Rhetorical please dont answer that
If you want to live by something over two hundred years old try arming yourself with something of a similar vintage.
It would be poor taste to post Jim Jefferies brilliantly cutting routine about gun control which mentions that exact point (and many other), but do google it if you feel the need to lighten the mood.
CountZeroAnd he was a crap shot, too; seven or eight shots to kill two people a metre or so away?
One handed, holding a phone in the other it seems. Have you ever fired a semi-automatic hand gun? I have, and it's actually quite difficult to hit things. It's not like the movies.
CountZeroAnd he was a crap shot, too; seven or eight shots to kill two people a metre or so away?
It takes incredible discipline and skill to put rounds centre of mass efficiently. And that's with two hands!
@graham suicides skew those figures quite a lot
Not really no. The table on the link gives you a full breakdown for suicide, homicide, unintentional and undetermined.
The figures for just Homicide were 0.05 for UK and 3.55 for the US.
I acknowledge that they do represent an average risk across the population though - the actual risk faced by nice middle class white people is quite a lot lower.
Plenty of countries have guns in widespread ownership like Canada and Switzerland which don't see the same levels of gun crime. It's a more complex problem than just the guns
I agree. And I also agree that sadly it is a nearly impossible problem to solve in the states.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't try though.
@Graham he was reported dead hours ago.
Fair enough - that was the last update I'd seen.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
Keep a Desert Eagle in your bedside drawer for "home defense"? You're a batshitmentalist.
Desert Eagle! 😯
That is not a pistol that is a tank! Probably break the shooter own wrist first ... 😮
1911 is reliable. 🙂
*wonders how it feels to shoot a gun*
*imagines it causes the strangest boner* (to someone who struggles for one normally)
Gun-free carriages?
Me mate's uncle was a gun dealer when we were young. His uncle also represented the country in Olympic shooting ...
But I wish I could shoot his other younger uncle because the bar-stewart boosted about him shooting the endanger wild Borneo buffolo ...
chewkwBut I wish I could shoot his other younger uncle because the bar-stewart boosted about him shooting the endanger wild Borneo buffolo ...
Yep, that's a good and rational attitude.
The US has two choices IMO.
1. Maintain status quo.
2. Revoke the 2nd amendment and deal with the consequences.
Both will result in firearms related homicide. But at a different rate.
Guns don't kill people.
Mentally ill people choose guns as an effective, remote medium to kill.
Nothing will change.
Psychologically, its far harder to kill someone with a knife and also much more difficult to take down multiple targets in one attack. Close quarter armed combat is a completely different prospect than simply blatting off a few rounds from 100yds away.
I agree with this. Perhaps also the ease of obtaining guns makes perpetrating these acts more likely if you intend to commit suicide afterwards. I don't know but perhaps shooting yourself seems easier than turning a knife on yourself or other methods.
I have gun, intend to end it, may as well vent anger first, if you know what I mean.
jimjam - Member
...chewkw
But I wish I could shoot his other younger uncle because the bar-stewart boosted about him shooting the endanger wild Borneo buffoloYep, that's a good and rational attitude.
Ya, that bar-stewart uncle is still alive and healthy today ... 😡
In the same way that putting paracetamol into popper packaging rather the bottles helped reduce suicide attempts using paracetamol, making guns harder to access should reduce the firearms death rate. It may not of stopped this shooting, but suicides, accidental deaths, spur of the moment type shootings would almost definitely reduce.
Let's hope you will fight back when your life or those of your family are under threat.
The fundamental difference you're overlooking is,
Should I happen to find my life or that of my family under threat, it is incredibly unlikely to be from an assailant with a gun. Ergo, the chances of me finding myself suddenly having to play Dirty Harry in my living room one night is about as probable as me taking the lead in Swan Lake at the national ballet.
Cougar - Moderator
Let's hope you will fight back when your life or those of your family are under threat.The fundamental difference you're overlooking is,
Should I happen to find my life or that of my family under threat, it is incredibly unlikely to be from an assailant with a gun. Ergo, the chances of me finding myself suddenly having to play Dirty Harry in my living room one night is about as probable as me taking the lead in Swan Lake at the national ballet.
I wouldn't bet on that nowadays when your luck is down, yes the probability is low, but I mean look at the French train shooter, where the hell did he get the AK47 with a bag of ammunition ... 😯
Mentally ill people choose guns as an effective, remote medium to kill.
What would be assessed as mentally ill depends on the values of the society where the assessment is made.
In America there is a normalised view in many quarters that ownership of automatic weapons is safe and desirable, that disproportionate response to perceived threats is acceptable and that these are rights inviolate. So, no it's not just mentally ill people who shoot people with guns.
jamj1974 - Member
In America there is a normalised view in many quarters that ownership of automatic weapons is safe and desirable, that disproportionate response to perceived threats is acceptable and that these are rights inviolate. So, no it's not just mentally ill people who shoot people with guns.
By your assumption they are all nutters? 😯
derek_starship - MemberThe US has two choices IMO.
1. Maintain status quo.
2. Revoke the 2nd amendment and deal with the consequences.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to amend the US constitution?
Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which constitutional amendments can be proposed and ratified.To Propose Amendments
In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
From [url= http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm ]http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm[/url]
[url= http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131 ] ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens[/url]
Why do suicides not count as gun related deaths? Obviously you can kill yourself without a gun, but a gun makes it much easier. A suicide is still someone's mum/dad/son/daughter gone. It's not like saying "those figures include mannequins that have been shot"!
Guns don't kill people.Mentally ill people choose guns as an effective, remote medium to kill.
Nothing will change.
So you're saying everyone who killed someone with a gun in America was mentally ill and removing easy access won't change that?
What a very strange view.
I think Sandy Hook was a turning point, really - once the US decided that even massacring little kids was okay, the possibility of ever changing US gun control vanished.
There's been more than one mass shooting [i]per day[/i] in the US this year.
By your assumption they are all nutters?
That's almost the opposite of what I said. I am saying their societal norms are different from our own, which makes actions we would seem abnormal, normal. We throw this mental illness thing around a lot without considering the cultural background.
I think they are a bit ****ed tbh. Even if all firearms sales ceased instantly tomorrow the country is completely awash with guns. Something like 3-400 million. There's a crazy statistic along the lines that Americans own half of all guns on the planet.
Coupled with their healthcare system which by all accounts is entirely focused on selling as many drugs to as many people a possible, regardless of whether they need them or not and it's a recipe for disaster.
Presumably they could severely limit the types of guns allowed without needing an amendment to the constitution? I really can't see how anyone can justify owning an assault rifle, machine gun or sub-machine that they keep at home, they should be restricted to highly regulated gun ranges only. After that start limiting other guns (e.g. 9mm 10-round mag max for a handgun).
Of course in reality the combination of the powerful pro-gun lobby and general anti-government-interference stance of the republican party (esp. the more right-wing part) mean nothing of any meaning will get done.
FuzzyWuzzy - MemberPresumably they could severely limit the types of guns allowed without needing an amendment to the constitution? I really can't see how anyone can justify owning an assault rifle, machine gun or sub-machine that they keep at home, they should be restricted to highly regulated gun ranges only. After that start limiting other guns (e.g. 9mm 10-round mag max for a handgun).
There already are very strict regulations on machine guns and assault rifles, with their sale, movement and use being illegal or highly restricted in most states. Their sale and manufacture for civilian use has been banned since 1986. It's probably as easy to legally own a machine gun in the UK.
Google NFA Weapons or Title 2 weapons.