Reporter Killed Live on Air

If the guy is doing it during a live television report he must know he's going to get caught/killed so I'm not sure if the crews carrying a weapon would have mattered.

 

guaranteed to bring back some. But you can get some here today if you want. San Miguel on s. post oak.

 

I don't understand. If the ******* disgruntled employee didn't have a gun, how exactly would he murder these two innocent people so quickly?

Lets say guns are outlawed sometime in the future in this country, what happens to the millions of guns already out in circulation?

 

Asutralia never had the gun culture the US has. Statistically gun crime is down but it doesn't appear that wzy in recent years with constant news reports of shootings by Arab organized crime gangs.

 

They got ambushed and you have idiots in here saying an armed guard would have prevented this! LMAO!

 

Right, so my point of him just being "crazy" or in this case disgruntled and wanting to make some sick point to the employer just throws any intelligent discussion out the window *on this particular occurrence.*

Sad, just very sad. I didn't even watch the video. Rather, I should say I couldn't bring myself to watch it, and have no interest in doing so.

 

I don't think guns will ever be outlawed in totality, they are for better or worse part of the society here, but incentive programs to turn in guns for food or money could work, and have worked in the past.

 

Shoot man, if it's me, I don't want an armed guard, I want to carry myself. not saying I could have prevented anything especially since Mr. Disgruntled had the jump on us, but man...at least I'd have a chance. Shooter obviously cared about getting caught enough to run (there was something about a car chase right?).

 

Of course not, there are no guarantees in life.....but just about every country in the world protects things they see as important with armed guards. I wonder why that is?

And that's fine if that's what your people want, personally I don't think most in America trust the government/police enough to be totally at their mercy for defense and justice. It's a cultural thing.

Yeah, I'm sure the president has armed guards for the illusion of security. No other reason.

So are you suggesting that these people would somehow be less dead if the gunman had used a revolver? Changing the tool from a semi-automatic to pistol does nothing to address the real problem.

Would a universal background check have mattered in this case? Yet to be seen, but likely not.

Would an electronic safety feature have mattered in this case? Yet to be see, but likely not.

Again, you can attack the tool used, or you can try to figure out the "why" and attempt to address that.

 

Sounds good for those with no means to eat and whatnot, but the shootings people get all worked up about involve nothing like that. They just appear to be sick people, and are just senseless killing of defenseless and innocent targets.

 

gun amnesty.

 

The video posted here have no blood or gore. But you know what happen.

 

You wouldn't have a chance regardless.

Cameraman = holding a camera over his shoulder.
Reporter = Holding microphone and focusing eye contact with interviewee and camera.

 

There is no middle ground for gun control. It is just impossible with the access people can gain today. mar1juana and other drugs are illegal and yet all through high school there were at least 100 people I knew had easy access to anything. There is always a way around the law.

As a Texan, I know that I am happy to own guns. I would never imagine being caught in a situation where I was not aloud to have a gun yet a criminal had one to use against me.

I wish there were middle ground. RIP to these folks. This was terrible, absolutely terrible.

 

Right on. Too many idiots in America wanting to keep their guns instead of the better good.

 

The way the guy ambushed them, their only chance was if they had guards looking out for them while they were focused on doing the news.

 

When you carry and are confronted by an armed aggressor. The stats aren't in your favor.

 

I know, I think it's just going back to my previous point about the shooter in this case being like many shooters in these occurrences. They are cowards. It's the only way to describe someone who would harm defenseless targets. If they knew that the targets were actually protected, whether it be by guard or self protection, it won't solve all the problems, but would deter some. At least I believe so.

 

When you are unarmed and confronted by an armed aggressor, the stats are even less in your favor.

 

Pretty sure if it's in a situation similar to this, they'd be slightly better. I'll take that over being completely defenseless, wouldn't you?