I don't think changes in laws would have changed this. I think if someone is intent on murdering someone or doing a mass shooting, there's very little you can do legislatively to stop them.Please note, everyone, that Mark Costello was not shot. His killer used a knife. No possible gun control law could have stopped that killing.

Personally I think a more effective way to reduce the level of violence in this country would be to throttle it back in all the mass entertainment media. We now have a generation that has grown up watching slaughter on TV and in movies, and consequently has become desensitized to what it really is... But that solution would interfere with our freedom of speech... Can't have that!

Dangerous to who? And how? Certainly not to Alison Parker & Adam Ward, the danger they were in has been pretty well established, and what they were in danger from was this dude's gun, not any oversimplification about gun violence.To make this statement accurate, delete the six characters I've marked in red.

We need more "take off your shoes at the airport" type solutions...

It didn't occur to me before I left for lunch, but this is a pretty ridiculous comparison and will be until being bludgeoned to death with a shoe overtakes gun violence as the cause of 67% of homicides in the US. (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls)


Please note, everyone, that Mark Costello was not shot. His killer used a knife. No possible gun control law could have stopped that killing.

See the stats I just quoted about homicides and gun violence.


To make this statement accurate, delete the six characters I've marked in red.

No, no, I think it stands quite accurately as is. He certainly didn't kill them with his presence alone, that was pretty obvious from the cell phone video he took before and during the murders.

It's not a ridiculous comparison, because it represents a false solution to make people feel better, without actually addressing the cause. This specific case, for example, this guy planned out well in advance to kill someone. He was driven to murder. This wasn't random, or heat of the moment. I think in those types of cases, the choice of weapon is merely what's available. Without a gun, he likely might have used a knife, or a sword, or a car, or an axe, or whatever. Whether or not he would have been more or less successful is a valid question, but IMO just focusing on the guns ignores underlying causes of this type of violence. Like I said, I'm all for a guns discussion, but this is about more than guns.

I forgot to add that gun violence is a major problem in America that needs something done as well as all kinds of violence. It took a couple generations to get here but few have the guts to do anything about it.

Personally I think a more effective way to reduce the level of violence in this country would be to throttle it back in all the mass entertainment media. We now have a generation that has grown up watching slaughter on TV and in movies, and consequently has become desensitized to what it really is... But that solution would interfere with our freedom of speech... Can't have that!

No way.

I love me some gory, shoot-em-up movies and I have no desire to go out and slaughter people.

It's not a ridiculous comparison, because it represents a false solution to make people feel better, without actually addressing the cause. This specific case, for example, this guy planned out well in advance to kill someone. He was driven to murder. This wasn't random, or heat of the moment. I think in those types of cases, the choice of weapon is merely what's available. Without a gun, he likely might have used a knife, or a sword, or a car, or an axe, or whatever. Whether or not he would have been more or less successful is a valid question, but IMO just focusing on the guns ignores underlying causes of this type of violence. Like I said, I'm all for a guns discussion, but this is about more than guns.

In 2013 gun violence was responsible for (pulled from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), and before you complain about Wikipedia this particular article is very well sourced with links to CDC data):

84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens)
11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000)
21,175 by suicide with a firearm
505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm
281 deaths due to firearms with "undetermined intent"
Gun control is only a false solution if every single one of these listed incidents would have simply happened anyway with some other weapon. Some of them, sure, but I suspect a majority simply would have not occurred. What has widespread gun ownership done for this country that is worth 30,000 dead people even once, let alone as a yearly total?

Yes David, if things had been different, they wouldn't be the same. Except sans a gun, you'd still have someone rather capable of calculating a detailed plan, against very specific targets, timed for maximum exposure, and a manifesto, and an escape plan.

Where I canna follow you down the trial you choose is the notion that the instrument of death is the one single most important factor and without a gun, what happened would not have happened.

A motivated killer, so unassuming in appearance he was able to have film running for the planned attack, even showing the weapon of choice for a bit before acting. But yeah, only the gun is important.

Not a path I can walk. Sorry, but my experiences won't let me stroll along and sing that song.

In 2013 gun violence was responsible for (pulled from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), and before you complain about Wikipedia this particular article is very well sourced with links to CDC data):

84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens)
11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000)
21,175 by suicide with a firearm
505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm
281 deaths due to firearms with "undetermined intent"
Gun control is only a false solution if every single one of these listed incidents would have simply happened anyway with some other weapon. Some of them, sure, but I suspect a majority simply would have not occurred. What has widespread gun ownership done for this country that is worth 30,000 dead people even once, let alone as a yearly total?

You make some pretty big assumptions there. The people who committed suicide should not be lumped in with everyone else.

how did the killer know where the anchor/reporter would be on that day at that time? and how did he know they would be together?

In 2013 gun violence was responsible for (pulled from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), and before you complain about Wikipedia this particular article is very well sourced with links to CDC data):

84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens)
11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000)
21,175 by suicide with a firearm
505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm
281 deaths due to firearms with "undetermined intent"
Gun control is only a false solution if every single one of these listed incidents would have simply happened anyway with some other weapon. Some of them, sure, but I suspect a majority simply would have not occurred. What has widespread gun ownership done for this country that is worth 30,000 dead people even once, let alone as a yearly total?

Not at all to trivialize the senseless deaths, but taking all of the deaths in those stats together and dividing it by the total deaths in the US in 2013 (also from the CDC website), and the gun deaths amount to 1% of the total deaths, which is not statistically significant, meaning per margin of error those same number of folks could have died any number of other ways.

Also, IMO the biggest concern with those stats is the suicide number. Not the fact that they used a gun, but the fact that more people died by suicide than by homicide. That is a non-trivial problem, and a MUCH more critical problem to address than gun violence IMO.

Let me ask you David - what problem are you trying to solve, homicides or homicides by guns?

Yes David, if things had been different, they wouldn't be the same. Except sans a gun, you'd still have someone rather capable of calculating a detailed plan, against very specific targets, timed for maximum exposure, and a manifesto, and an escape plan.

Where I canna follow you down the trial you choose is the notion that the instrument of death is the one single most important factor and without a gun, what happened would not have happened.

A motivated killer, so unassuming in appearance he was able to have film running for the planned attack, even showing the weapon of choice for a bit before acting. But yeah, only the gun is important.

Not a path I can walk. Sorry, but my experiences won't let me stroll along and sing that song.

There's a pretty big difference in ease of use for killing someone with a gun compared to pretty much any other method. Yes, he could have used a knife instead, but he probably also couldn't have killed two people and injured a third nearly as easily and uncontested as with a gun.


You make some pretty big assumptions there. The people who committed suicide should not be lumped in with everyone else.

Given that my point is gun control versus the damage guns do, I think that the suicides are entirely relevant. Would they have killed themselves anyway? Possibly so, possibly not, but if so it would have been through some other method, many of which have greater failure rates. You can't pump someone's stomach to remove the bullet from their skull, or to get the shotgun blast out of their chest.


Not at all to trivialize the senseless deaths, but taking all of the deaths in those stats together and dividing it by the total deaths in the US in 2013 (also from the CDC website), and the gun deaths amount to 1% of the total deaths, which is not statistically significant, meaning per margin of error those same number of folks could have died any number of other ways.

Given that the top killers are stuff like heart disease and cancer, it's really not as simple as looking at the number of deaths by gun violence and figuring that they might have died anyway since so many people die as is. That's just not how statistics work.

Let me ask you David - what problem are you trying to solve, homicides or homicides by guns?

Primarily the latter, largely because of how much an impact it would have on the former.

I just can't comprehend looking at the number of people killed by firearms (again, 67% of homicides ), and thinking, "you know, we should ignore the gun issue and address this from any other possible angle." Sure, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but a lot fewer people would be killing people if they didn't have easy access to a gun to do the deed. Would there still be murders? Of course, but there would be fewer, possibly [I]many fewer, and that is a worthy goal.

I'm a software developer, I look for the efficient way to solve problems. In this case? It's the guns.

I could have taken all 3 out with the right type and grade katana sword. Quieter and quicker. I just don't have that type of mentality to go out and do stuff like that. When you put out a fire you spray at the bottom, the root cause of the fire. Spraying at the middle or top only makes it worse.

how did the killer know where the anchor/reporter would be on that day at that time? and how did he know they would be together?

1. It was their last live shot (of probably 3 or 4) of the day. This would have been perhaps two hours after the first one. This type of live shot is common on morning news on most stations (a local example would be Ashley Kringen on KFOR).

If there is breaking news overnight, the reporter floats to cover that, then moves over to the "fluff" (community-oriented) story on location. If no breaking story, they spend all morning on location at the community story location. These live shots are arranged days in advance, and often promoted the day before in newscasts and on social media.

All he had to do was wake up, watch the early newscast, social media, etc., and then drive to the location to catch the late live shot. He could have been very leisurely about it. These shoots are no secret.

2. Reporters and photographers such as these two usually work as teams. They are together on these shoots every morning at the same time.

But honestly, I don't think he targeted them personally so much as he targeted the team that was doing live shots for the station, which unfortunately for them happened to be these two. I saw a report today that said the "racist remarks" that he referenced the reporter previously making were apparently when she mentioned "swinging by" a location, and also something about being "out in the field" (common workplace terms in media). Dude was a loon.

The comments that became a reporter?s death sentence | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/08/28/reporters-everyday-comments-deemed-racist-by-on-air-killer/)

I just can't comprehend looking at the number of people killed by firearms (again, 67% of homicides [in 2013]), and thinking, "you know, we should ignore the gun issue and address this from any other possible angle." Sure, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but a lot fewer people would be killing people if they didn't have easy access to a gun to do the deed. Would there still be murders? Of course, but there would be fewer, possibly many fewer, and that is a worthy goal.

I'm a software developer, I look for the efficient way to solve problems. In this case? It's the guns.

Except that no one has said not to address the guns, or to ignore the gun issue and focus on other issues. In fact, I've repeatedly said the gun discussion needs to happen, just that it can't only be limited to just that.

As a software developer, you should get this - you don't just block sql injections in your code and assume the problem of security is done.

I personally handle sql injection attacks by using a framework that makes it impossible to them to happen in the first place. To stretch the metaphor even more, I'd liken that to dealing with gun violence by making sure that guns aren't as common as sin. It's hard to shoot someone with a gun you don't have.

What is the point of all of the "he could have used an ax/acid/katana!" posts if it isn't to suggest that gun control wouldn't have made a difference?

I personally handle sql injection attacks by using a framework that makes it impossible to them to happen in the first place. To stretch the metaphor even more, I'd liken that to dealing with gun violence by making sure that guns aren't as common as sin. It's hard to shoot someone with a gun you don't have.

What is the point of all of the "he could have used an ax/acid/katana!" posts if it isn't to suggest that gun control wouldn't have made a difference?

It's to show that people who want to murder will find a way. Reducing gun availability is an admirable goal in and of itself, but it's not the only solution. I'd rather have a firewall AND a good password. Not just one or the other.

And yeah, there is absolutely no way to know if gun control would have made a difference here. And considering the 300 Million plus guns here (on the low end), saying "remove guns" as a solution is like saying "ban spam" and expecting junk emails to stop. Or even reduce.

Well sure. But we're also never going to get there is we always give up before doing anything because the process is too hard.

As a software developer, you should get this - you don't just block sql injections in your code and assume the problem of security is done.Nah, everybody knows that all you need is a firewall and you can quit worrying about it. {/sarcasm).

Well sure. But we're also never going to get there is we always give up before doing anything because the process is too hard.To continue with the computer analogies, consider comparing NYC's Sullivan law that bans possession of a handgun anywhere in the city, with the Can-Spam act promulgated by the federal government several years ago. They've been about equally effective in solving the problems they're meant to address. Can we expect any new regulations to be any better?

Absent tossing out the 2nd amendment, those seeking major restrictions on firearm ownership or possession are simply never going to get where they seem to want the country as a whole to get to regarding gun control.

And, that, lads and lasses, is simply not going to happen.

Night.

Primarily the latter, largely because of how much an impact it would have on the former.

I just can't comprehend looking at the number of people killed by firearms (again, 67% of homicides ), and thinking, "you know, we should ignore the gun issue and address this from any other possible angle." Sure, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but a lot fewer people would be killing people if they didn't have easy access to a gun to do the deed. Would there still be murders? Of course, but there would be fewer, possibly [I]many fewer, and that is a worthy goal.

I'm a software developer, I look for the efficient way to solve problems. In this case? It's the guns.

Well you are never go to accomplish your goal with your approach.

Well you are never go to accomplish your goal with your approach.

Ehh, this was mostly an exercise in arguing the issue. Once Sandy Hook happened and it turned out that elementary school kids being gunned down in their classrooms wasn't enough for any meaningful gun control legislation, I lost any faith that we're ever going to get anywhere on this.

I think the want to enact strict gun control comes from a good place, but it's misguided, in my opinion; it doesn't come from a holistic view of the society it wants to change. The world is littered with examples that can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that either side of the debate is the correct one. Canada and Mexico have strict gun laws. Gun crimes in Canada are generally rather low, but gun crimes in Mexico are through the roof. Vermont is a constitutional carry state with no real gun laws on the books at all, and it's one of the safest places in the US in which to live. Until recently, Chicago had a handgun ban, but your chances of dying by gunshot wound in Chicago tended to be exceptionally high, relative to the rest of the US.

I know it's a bumper sticker, but it is a fact that if you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns. US society isn't going to change; it has a mean, violent streak, but by an large it's pretty good. If you take guns away, that violent streak won't go anywhere. Criminals would still be using guns on people, and if guns were harder to come by, the violence would have to get a lot more hands-on and personal. Stricter gun laws won't create a polite society.

This was such a horrific tragedy. I see the gun control argument in this thread, but nobody mentions that it's just more race violence. He said he was getting back at Alison Parker for some race comment, he said he hates white people, he said he did it in retaliation for Charleston. But do we hear about this? Imagine if a white person had put a bunch of white supremacy statements on social media and then shot a black reporter, a black interviewee, and a black cameraman. The riots would still be going on. Sometimes we need to step back from all the political correctness and call it like it is. This was an act of racism internalized so much that he became combustible and exploded. Two seemingly wonderful people are dead and the real cause of their deaths can't be mentioned without being accused of "racism." Ironic.

I think the want to enact strict gun control comes from a good place, but it's misguided, in my opinion; it doesn't come from a holistic view of the society it wants to change. The world is littered with examples that can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that either side of the debate is the correct one. Canada and Mexico have strict gun laws. Gun crimes in Canada are generally rather low, but gun crimes in Mexico are through the roof. Vermont is a constitutional carry state with no real gun laws on the books at all, and it's one of the safest places in the US in which to live. Until recently, Chicago had a handgun ban, but your chances of dying by gunshot wound in Chicago tended to be exceptionally high, relative to the rest of the US.

I know it's a bumper sticker, but it is a fact that if you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns. US society isn't going to change; it has a mean, violent streak, but by an large it's pretty good. If you take guns away, that violent streak won't go anywhere. Criminals would still be using guns on people, and if guns were harder to come by, the violence would have to get a lot more hands-on and personal. Stricter gun laws won't create a polite society.

If I could "like" this twice, I would.


This was such a horrific tragedy. I see the gun control argument in this thread, but nobody mentions that it's just more race violence. He said he was getting back at Alison Parker for some race comment, he said he hates white people, he said he did it in retaliation for Charleston. But do we hear about this? Imagine if a white person had put a bunch of white supremacy statements on social media and then shot a black reporter, a black interviewee, and a black cameraman. The riots would still be going on. Sometimes we need to step back from all the political correctness and call it like it is. This was an act of racism internalized so much that he became combustible and exploded. Two seemingly wonderful people are dead and the real cause of their deaths can't be mentioned without being accused of "racism." Ironic.

This is interesting, because it's the pretty much a reversed version of the Charleston shooting. That was a crazy white guy shooting black people, this was a crazy black guy shooting white people. There were people calling each other out, I don't remember if it was on this board or another I visit, saying "why are white guys 'crazy' when they do this, and black guys are 'thugs'?"

While both of these shootings were caused by racism, I think it's fair to say that racism alone isn't the issue. I know a lot of people who will quietly admit that they are racist, but they don't go shooting up places. They just go deer hunting and tell jokes about black people, or Mexicans, or whatever. The problem is people who are racist and crazy. What triggers them to go on these mad rampages?

The problem is people who are racist and crazy. What triggers them to go on these mad rampages?

Remove "racist" from the equation and it's the same. With people like this, racism is simply the flavor of their violence. If they weren't racist, there would be another justification for killing people, because if you're the kind of person that would kill for racial motivations, then simply put, you're the type of person that kills.

One thing both of them had in common - they were mentally unfit to be self-supervised.

Ok, so we have racism, gun control, institutionalize the mentally ill, sword fighting, SQL programming, and I'm sure I missed something about us needing an In N Out Burger. I don't usually say anything about politics, but I happened to read this since it was not in that section. I'm sure I'll get some flack for this, but here goes. Just remember, I'm just posting a different view point like you all do, and I'm not intending to offend anyone at all. I think this is totally fake, and another tactic to divide the country. Once you divide, you conquer. Remember to look at the photos I've posted also. Photo of view showing the person being interviewed looking at the shooter. Photo of reporter glancing at shooter. Photo of the reporting reacting after the 3rd or 4th shot with showing the gun aimed at her heart. Photo of no blood spatter onto the lady being interviewed's white shirt after the what should've been a fatal shot to the reporter.


So sad :( Why do people do such horrible things


A gunman killed a reporter and photographer during a live television broadcast on Wednesday, officials and colleagues at the station said.

WDBJ7 correspondent Alison Parker is seen conducting an interview at around 6:45 a.m. at a shopping center in Moneta, Virginia.

In chilling footage that has been posted online, several shots break out and screams are heard. The camera drops to the floor and the screams continue — before the broadcast cuts away to a confused and concerned-looking anchor.

WDBJ7 Reporter Alison Parker, Photographer Adam Ward Killed on Live TV - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wdbj7-reporter-alison-parker-photographer-adam-ward-killed-live-tv-n416221)

OH mercy. I assume you also believe Sandy hook was faked as well. These conspiracy theories wear me out! how do you think NOBODY would call BS on this.. the famies of the people killed.. people in the news room.. all of them are in on it and will stay silent forever.. ok..

I think this is totally fake, and another tactic to divide the country. Once you divide, you conquer.

Crazy Aunt Linda from Facebook, is that you?

11425

I'm out.

I'm just offering a different point of view. It's not a bad thing to be skeptical, and I'm just saying that it may be fake. I've offered evidence that brings up some questions, you can't deny that. Rather than attacking, calling me crazy, then your Aunt Linda, why don't you analyze the footage like I did, and offer a different point of view. I didn't attack anyone.

I'm just offering a different point of view. It's not a bad thing to be skeptical, and I'm just saying that it may be fake. I've offered evidence that brings up some questions, you can't deny that. Rather than attacking, calling me crazy, then your Aunt Linda, why don't you analyze the footage like I did, and offer a different point of view. I didn't attack anyone.

Whether something happened or not is not a matter of opinion or "viewpoint." It happened or it didn't. When you're speaking of pure objective fact, you can't just throw your "viewpoint" out there and claim to be a victim when people don't buy it. You either prove your statement, or you don't bring it up. Nothing you posted even remotely proves anything regarding your conspiracy theory. Until you can provide definitive and substantive proof of your allegations you will be nothing more than "Aunt Linda."

Whether something happened or not is not a matter of opinion or "viewpoint." It happened or it didn't. When you're speaking of pure objective fact, you can't just throw your "viewpoint" out there and claim to be a victim when people don't buy it. You either prove your statement, or you don't bring it up. Nothing you posted even remotely proves anything regarding your conspiracy theory. Until you can provide definitive and substantive proof of your allegations you will be nothing more than "Aunt Linda."

Ok, I think I proved my case with the photos. Now, I want to see your definitive proof besides what you see on TV. Answer these:

1. Photo 1, she looked right at the shooter. How did she not react to that? He's a former coworker that was disgruntled, and filed complaints on her. Don't you think she would've noticed that?

2. Photo 2, where's the blood? The lady is wearing a white shirt. Alison was shot in the chest, point blank, no blood spatter on the white shirt. Come on now..... Did she forget to release the fake blood?

3. Photo 3, person that is 120 pounds wet takes 3 maybe 6 shots at point blank range. One of which was aimed right at her heart, and her shoulder. How did she turn around and run away both arms moving, blood still pumping to her legs to do that? Where are the shells from the gun? If he missed, which I don't see how, he would've hit that wooden pole behind them or something. Where is the ricochet? It's so obvious these are blanks. A bullet is powerful, yet we have no evidence of one hitting anything. As she's running, he's shooting her in the back, there's a photo out there of one aimed right at her head with enough time to see. Where's the blood? Shot in the heart, shoulder, probably lung, probably stomach, and head. Is this lady bulletproof? Again, no blood.

4. Photo 4, the lady being interviewed was looking right at him as he was walking up. Go to the zoo, walk up the huge deck for the new elephant exhibit. Tell me you can't clearly hear every step on that thing. How did she not say something when a man holding a gun is walking up, or even if he was hiding the gun, don't you think she would react seeing someone that probably has a strange glassed over look on his face walking towards them?

Just do a simple Google search. There is so much more questionable evidence. There's a photo of the camera man on the ground with people around him out there. Again, no blood, no Alison Parker. Why would they just leave the body laying there? No crime scene tape. Why is the National Guard out there?

Before you flame, answer my questions. Go out and fire a gun with actual bullets at a deck the way this is, hell put scarecrows standing where the people were standing. Shoot the same way, then video what happens. I think you'd be surprised at the difference.

This is all just silly. It happened and it happened exactly as purported no matter what kind of theories abound. I have no idea why this is even being discussed. There are no alternate options or reasons why there should be.

I suppose people think the reporter and the photographer had been having an affair and faked their deaths so they could run off together instead of marrying their fiancés and live the rest of their lives with Elvis.

Welcome to YouTube World! If you put keywords regarding this shooting in YouTube, you will find "documentaries" - some of them a couple of hours long - showing that Sandy Hook, Spring, TX, the TV team shootings, the Boston Marathon bombing, (and of course 9/11) are all "hoaxes" using "crisis actors." These videos are all BS. They will say anything, distort everything, in order to get views and subscribers. It's a whole new world of "free speech." There are also many "debunker" videos that show how ridiculous the claims are. In a world of Photoshop, anybody can put faces on other bodies and say, "Look - see! - the same victims were in Sandy Hook too!" It's mass hysteria with some of these YouTubers and the comment sections are sometimes even worse.

Ok, so we have racism, gun control, institutionalize the mentally ill, sword fighting, SQL programming, and I'm sure I missed something about us needing an In N Out Burger. I don't usually say anything about politics, but I happened to read this since it was not in that section. I'm sure I'll get some flack for this, but here goes. Just remember, I'm just posting a different view point like you all do, and I'm not intending to offend anyone at all. I think this is totally fake, and another tactic to divide the country. Once you divide, you conquer. Remember to look at the photos I've posted also. Photo of view showing the person being interviewed looking at the shooter. Photo of reporter glancing at shooter. Photo of the reporting reacting after the 3rd or 4th shot with showing the gun aimed at her heart. Photo of no blood spatter onto the lady being interviewed's white shirt after the what should've been a fatal shot to the reporter.

Beyond the reality (for those of us that choose to live in it) that this tragedy actually happened, there isn't a single ounce of credibility to support a staged conspiracy theory.

As for 'looking at the shooter' - For one, he's actually further away from the reporter then it appears. Second, you develop tunnel vision in these sorts of situations and while you may be aware 'something ' is going on around you, you can't distinguish what is happening or who is actually around you.

As for 'blood splatter' - most likely one or more of the bullets went straight through her. Additionally, I've seen shooting and stabbing victims - the amount of blood present is directly related to where the injuries occur. My good friend and co-worker was shot four times when the Full Moon was robbed several years ago and initially there was almost no blood at all (he survived).

You also have no idea where the gun was actually aimed. At any distance at all a hairs difference in angle can greatly change the path of the bullet(s).

The mere forwarding of such nonsense is a bitter slap in the face to the victims (and there are many in this case).

I'm just offering a different point of view. It's not a bad thing to be skeptical, and I'm just saying that it may be fake. I've offered evidence that brings up some questions, you can't deny that. Rather than attacking, calling me crazy, then your Aunt Linda, why don't you analyze the footage like I did, and offer a different point of view. I didn't attack anyone.

It is you! Hope you're doing well. Give my best to Uncle Ronnie.

Beyond the reality (for those of us that choose to live in it) that this tragedy actually happened, there isn't a single ounce of credibility to support a staged conspiracy theory.

As for 'looking at the shooter' - For one, he's actually further away from the reporter then it appears. Second, you develop tunnel vision in these sorts of situations and while you may be aware 'something ' is going on around you, you can't distinguish what is happening or who is actually around you.

As for 'blood splatter' - most likely one or more of the bullets went straight through her. Additionally, I've seen shooting and stabbing victims - the amount of blood present is directly related to where the injuries occur. My good friend and co-worker was shot four times when the Full Moon was robbed several years ago and initially there was almost no blood at all (he survived).

You also have no idea where the gun was actually aimed. At any distance at all a hairs difference in angle can greatly change the path of the bullet(s).

The mere forwarding of such nonsense is a bitter slap in the face to the victims (and there are many in this case).

Mr. Bates, you get the gold star. Thank you for offering another opinion for a healthy discussion.

To the rest of you. Thanks for proving the point I was trying to make. You can't engage in a healthy discussion no matter what the differing opinion is. You liberals want to talk about equality, acceptance, and progressivism. Yet you don't want to talk about that if someone tries to offer another opinion. Please don't make his about race either. I'm so tired of this race war when we should all stand together. Go read some of your other posts, and think about how you treat others that don't agree with you 100%. Peace.

Ok, I think I proved my case with the photos. Now, I want to see your definitive proof besides what you see on TV. Answer these:

1. Photo 1, she looked right at the shooter. How did she not react to that? He's a former coworker that was disgruntled, and filed complaints on her. Don't you think she would've noticed that?

She's focused on her job. She's in the middle of a live interview with someone, and is paying attention to that person. As Bates said, she may be aware that someone is standing over to the side, but that doesn't mean that she's going to focus on who it is and what he's doing. I've given a television interview before and you don't notice what people are doing 20 feet away from you.


2. Photo 2, where's the blood? The lady is wearing a white shirt. Alison was shot in the chest, point blank, no blood spatter on the white shirt. Come on now..... Did she forget to release the fake blood?

If this was a fake video, why wouldn't they just film it again? "Oops, you forgot to release the blood. Let's try it from the top."

It may be that the shots he fired that we saw on camera actually missed, and the shots that killed her took place a few seconds later, as she was running away. Of course, this isn't the movies. Depending on where she is hit, the size of the bullets, etc, large red spots on clothing may not instantly appear. In the movies, blood spatter is used for dramatic affect. In the real world, it can be pretty limited.



3. Photo 3, person that is 120 pounds wet takes 3 maybe 6 shots at point blank range. One of which was aimed right at her heart, and her shoulder. How did she turn around and run away both arms moving, blood still pumping to her legs to do that? Where are the shells from the gun? If he missed, which I don't see how, he would've hit that wooden pole behind them or something. Where is the ricochet? It's so obvious these are blanks. A bullet is powerful, yet we have no evidence of one hitting anything. As she's running, he's shooting her in the back, there's a photo out there of one aimed right at her head with enough time to see. Where's the blood? Shot in the heart, shoulder, probably lung, probably stomach, and head. Is this lady bulletproof? Again, no blood.

Bullets are small. They leave small holes. They don't always ricochet. You can't see them in flight. We don't know how close he got to hitting her. I'm a lawyer and have tried a lot of shooting cases. Many don't get any media attention at all. Most of the time you don't know where all the bullets went. Sometimes they never find them all.

The guy is holding a cell phone camera and a gun. He's pointing them both at his target because he wants to catch this on video. That means he's not aiming the gun properly. He's not looking down the barrel, pointing it directly at the target. He's got it off to the side, and is guessing at the aim. He's looking at the screen of his phone, not down the sight of the gun. That's how you miss at that range. Even a small angle makes a big difference.

As far as the damage, again, we don't know exactly when and where she got hit. Sometimes gunshots do very little damage, sometimes they do a lot. If the attacker missed her with the first few shots (until the cell phone video ends, where presumably he quits filming so he can actually aim at her), then of course she can run away. If he hit her in a place that was not instantly fatal (which is most places), then she'll still be able to turn and run for the three seconds that we see her running on video. My cousin got shot, but didn't realize he'd been hit until he jumped in his car and drove off.


4. Photo 4, the lady being interviewed was looking right at him as he was walking up. Go to the zoo, walk up the huge deck for the new elephant exhibit. Tell me you can't clearly hear every step on that thing. How did she not say something when a man holding a gun is walking up, or even if he was hiding the gun, don't you think she would react seeing someone that probably has a strange glassed over look on his face walking towards them?

We don't see his face, so we don't know if he has a "strange, glassed over look". That woman is also looking at the reporter most of the time, because she's being interviewed on live TV. They're in a public space where people can walk by. The presence of a person, even a suspicious one (if you really focused on him), is not unexpected.


Just do a simple Google search. There is so much more questionable evidence. There's a photo of the camera man on the ground with people around him out there. Again, no blood, no Alison Parker. Why would they just leave the body laying there? No crime scene tape. Why is the National Guard out there?

Before you flame, answer my questions. Go out and fire a gun with actual bullets at a deck the way this is, hell put scarecrows standing where the people were standing. Shoot the same way, then video what happens. I think you'd be surprised at the difference.

Why would someone fake this?

And why is Alex Jones posting on OKCTALK?

If you toss up a conspiracy theory of that level of craziness, don't act all offended and blame the terrible state of discourse when nobody takes you seriously. There is no requirement in polite conversation and discussion to offer every single possible suggestion fair consideration.

This may seem odd coming from me given my previous "take all the guns!" posts in this thread, but I knew going in that it was a pie in the sky idea that would have trouble finding fertile ground.

I have read more than one of the conspiracy theories on this and sandy hook. they really make me question.. not the events but the people who come up with these things.

the #1 thing I have seen in this and other conspiracy theories has to do with the blood.. and amount of blood. Television and movies have created a false sense of what murder looks like. They like it to be grand with blood everywhere spurting from the victim and covering a crime scene with blood. If you have ever had the misfortune to see someone shot you would know that it doesn't usually play out that way at all. The weirdness of the situation isn't from blood and gore, for me it was from the still and how ordinary everything felt while someone had just been attacked and died. It in fact felt the way I felt seeing that video. I also find it disgraceful and insulting to the lives of those killed and their family members to go down this road of doubt.

Let's try to steer this conversation back toward reality, shall we?

Okay. So I own a firearm myself, and generally I support the idea of the 2nd amendment. Of course, I would agree that there are guns in the hands of people who should not have them, and we should make it tougher for these individuals to get their hands on guns. But I don't think "More gun control!" is the ultimate answer to our problem. A sane, level headed, rational person that owns a gun is not going to perpetrate a crime like this. I've never picked up my gun and thought, "Hey, I should go shoot someone!". People who are mentally ill, people who have lost their sense of humanity or care for the world around them, who can no longer recognize that taking the life of another human being is wrong, are the kind of people that do these sorts of things.

Heavy-handed gun control, especially executed in a vacuum of other solutions, is destined to fail. Take Chicago, for instance. In July of this year, to use one example, there were 82 shootings in a single 12-hour period - 15 of them fatal. This in a city that has probably the strictest effective gun control in the nation, where not long ago, not one gun shop could be found within the city limits, and according to state law, you must have a special ID card (FOID card) to even be able to purchase a gun or ammo.

This example absolutely isn't to say that all gun control is bad - we do need to try and take some common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, like the mentally ill, convicted felons, etc, among other things - but tackling gun violence by treating the symptom while ignoring the root cause is totally ineffective.

I think it was aliens.

Why would someone fake this?

And what exactly did they accomplish if they were faking it? The country didn't erupt into a race war. Its just the usual debate on gun control. If they were trying to take away our guns I think they would have went with the "good kid that only went bad because of guns" argument. This story is already be brushed off by the public as just another crazy guy who snapped.

http://www.gamingrebellion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/History-Channel-Alien-Guy.jpg

BTW, I have done DOZENS of live shots, and I can say pretty definitively that I would not notice someone walk up as long as the camera was rolling. Reporters get pranked on live shots all of the time, and they usually don't notice until it happens. Live shot pranks are all over YouTube, as long as you're YouTubing for evidence.

Really the only person who most likely would have noticed someone off camera would be the cameraman, as they are usually looking for stuff to pan to, etc. during interviews, and part of their job is to recognize things happening out of frame and bring a camera around to the action. Which is why the assailant walked up BEHIND the cameraman, and stayed out of his line of sight the whole time. Remember that the gunman himself was a trained journalist, and he knew pretty much EXACTLY what the various reactions would be, based on experience. He COUNTED on it.

I feel like I should clarify my position. When I say pie in the sky, I mean Pie In The Sky. Take the legal guns, dismantle the legal gun industry, scour them out of the country. Only the criminals will have guns, sure, but just where would they get those guns, smuggle them into the country? Organized crime and gun runners could manage it, presumably, but average unbalanced Joe Blow is going to have far less access simply as a question of scale. Along those lines, I don't see Chicago as a good example of failed gun control when there's zero border control around the city that would actually stop their entry.

Of course, this is all a moot point given what I've heard about about 3D printing and gun CAD models. With that in play there would be no way to stop it, and that point could easily be right around the corner.

Ammo control is both more likely and possible.

To the rest of you. Thanks for proving the point I was trying to make. You can't engage in a healthy discussion no matter what the differing opinion is. You liberals want to talk about equality, acceptance, and progressivism. .

Liberals? Pretty sure everyone thinks you're a wingnut.

Extremist views are what they are. Outliers that nearly no one will pay any heed to, except another extremist outlier.

Let me dial this down for you to a grade school level.

If you pop loose a tiny silent fart in english, some classmates will notice, but most will let it slide on past.

if you drop trou and take a massive, nose burning, gut twisting dump by the teacher's desk just to get a reaction, yes, the reaction will definitely be different throughout the room.

So, kindly pull your britches back up, get some clorox and apologize to the class. Then go clean yourself up ya nasty little thing you.