I’ll have to buy a gun to protect myself from all these gun nuts
The father of the shooting victim has come out as a gun control advocate. And says:
The father of Alison Parker, the journalist shot dead on live television on Wednesday, has said that now he is campaigning for gun control he will probably have to get a firearm to defend himself.
And, he continues:
I want to go to the Virginia legislature and I want them to look me in the eye and tell me why we cant have a reasonable proposal, any reasonable background checks, the things common sense dictates, Parker said. I want them to look me in the eye and tell me why they wont support that.
Well, here’s why. Your plan won’t work. It won’t fix anything. And, as I’ve quoted before:
Well, there ya go. Victims are always right, after all. Suffering a tragedy bestows infallibility upon the victim a kind of karmic reward for having lost something.
Which is why it makes so much sense to base law and policy on the hysterical ravings of angry, freaked-out victims. They and they alone possess the clarity of thought and the kind of wise, sober, carefully crafted ideas that make for good policy.
August 31st, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Plus, he seems way too eager for the job. Only requiring the death of his daughter to find his place in this world. Shameful. But, I agree with him, we need to stop this aggressive violence. Which is why I am sending my daughters into this world armed and prepared to use defensive violence to stop attacks. Too bad he didn’t do the same.
August 31st, 2015 at 5:08 pm
I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child by whatever means, and I have deep sympathy for this dad. At the same time I have to wonder if he also feels some sense of guilt for failing to teach his daughter the importance of maintaining a sense of location and surroundings, maybe even to consider the need for self protection.
Some notable commenters criticize and mock those who try to use this as a teaching moment for others by making them understand that awareness is important always, and critical for those in the public eye. Those critics fail to understand that while everybody knows you can’t be 100% vigilant all the time, the decision to carry almost automatically enhances vigilance. And while even that won’t always deter or defend from a threat, it is always better than not preparing, or training, or trying. Tragedy is always the best teaching tool. Too bad it’s too late for him and his daughter. Maybe it isn’t too late for the next dad and daughter to discuss situational awareness and preparation for self defense.
August 31st, 2015 at 5:19 pm
@JTC: I am probably one of those critics you mention. I will say right now I am not against using this as a teachable moment. It is an assumption, however, that she wasn’t someone who tries to be aware of her surroundings most of the time. She wasn’t this time – and probably as a direct result of her need to be focused on her interview subject while on live TV. But maybe off camera she is an uber-elite operating sheepdog. Maybe.
I also reserve the right to mock and ostracize idiots who provide such thoughtful commentary like “SITUATIONAL AWARENESS BRAAAHHH” and “This would never happen to me, I’m always in condition yellow”. You say everyone knows that a person can’t be 100% vigilant all the time – yet that is exactly what dozens of comments I’ve read over the past week have said. Sometimes in those exact words.
August 31st, 2015 at 6:56 pm
Someone ought to tell him we already have “reasonable background checks”.
The problem is that Mr. TV Shooter passed them, because only unreasonable ones can catch someone who hasn’t been convicted of a felony or institutionalized.
August 31st, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Since the nutjob killer was not in the psycho wards, nor was he eligible for it under current laws, he would have gotten past any ‘reasonable’ background check the father wished for.
I know he hurts inside alot, but what he ask is still irrational unless… they start putting mentally ill people back in sanatoriums! And I doubt they will do that.
August 31st, 2015 at 8:48 pm
I don’t care what kind of tactical ninja training you have, you CANNOT see what’s on the other side of that camera spotlight. Shooter knew that. He didn’t hesitate, he was framing the iPhone video.
August 31st, 2015 at 11:25 pm
The world is so simple when it’s black and white; everyone is either a total sheep or a fucking ninja. No gray in-between, no thinking or learning required.
Sometimes I’m amazed that “our” side is winning.
September 1st, 2015 at 12:57 am
Thanks to Uncle for saying this. Someone needed to and you did it.
September 1st, 2015 at 3:21 am
“They and they alone possess the clarity of thought and the kind of wise, sober, carefully crafted ideas that make for good policy.”
Well that and the fact that the wholesale violation of rights is wrong. Not only stupid and absolutely counter-productive to safety and justice, but wrong.
Come over here, Mr. Parker, and I’ll look you in the eye and say it. I’ll also fill you in about the fact that those legislators you look to as all-powerful wizards and masters of time and space are sworn to uphold the constitution.
If you believe you’re going to prevent murder, which is as old as humanity itself (remember those two sons of Adam and Eve?) by restricting legal access to inanimate objects, you are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong.
My sister was stabbed to death in her own apartment by an intruder, and then her three year old daughter was strangled using a shoestring. Shall I then righteously march into my legislators’ offices and demand they restrict OTHER PEOPLE’S access to kitchen knives and shoestrings in response to that killing? Or would that be both ignorant and insane?
The concepts of self defense and justice are entirely lost on some people.
And BTW; there is nothing “reasonable” about requiring a background check before exercising a human right.
September 1st, 2015 at 8:53 am
@JTC: lol, you sure do make a lot of assumptions for one of the Enlightened Ones(tm) in “our” movement. I don’t see anyone in this comment section being so blank and white. And if you are referring to me, you might want to re-read what I wrote because you are basically agreeing with me. Using this murder to teach about situational awareness is good. Making an assumption that she died because she didn’t practice preparedness and situational awareness is wrong and dangerous.
And as wizardpc pointed out, the killer knew when she and the camera man would be the most vulnerable and exploited that weakness. Using this example to teach that no matter how situationally aware you are, there will be times you won’t see the threat coming is just as important.
@Lyle: That is what is so fascinating, and aggravating, about the gun control response after these types of events. Josh Earnest flat out agreed that all the proposals the White House and others are now pushing again would not have stopped that crazy monster from killing that reporter and camera man. They know it and they don’t care. They recognize an opportunity to play on peoples’ emotions to advance an agenda. The saddest part is seeing a father who just lost a child play that very same game. Of course, he is a politician so I’m sure it comes naturally.
September 1st, 2015 at 9:32 am
These reactionary measures seem ” reasonable” to some people when they are to be implemented by attacking the rights of someone else. When ” universal background checks” are proposed, the advocates need to tell us how that would be enforced and why criminally deranged murderers would obey them.
September 1st, 2015 at 9:44 am
And just to add to what wizardpc pointed out: How often do you think reporters get approached by bystanders like that while doing a story in the field? Probably 99.99999% of the time it’s going to just be some twit hoping to get noticed and interviewed because he’s there, or just caught on camera so he can point it out to his friends later. They’re either trained or learn quickly to ignore those people and focus on the reporting.
So, the cameraman is focused on framing his shot, while at the same time his field of view is severely restricted. And not only is the reporter focused on the interview subject, restricted in her field of view (because she can’t look around, she has to only look at either the subject or the camera), remembering her questions and her plan for the interview (without cue cards or a teleprompter!), listening to direction in her earpiece from the director in the studio, and listening to the subject in case she gets an unexpected answer, she’s also half blinded by the camera and deliberately ignoring anyone not involved in the interview.
Task overload + environmental factors + deliberately ignoring the peanut gallery because peanut gallery = extremely vulnerable to attack.
And the murderer knew it, because he had been in her position before.
September 1st, 2015 at 2:38 pm
Well, Mr. Reasonable Proposal, what is your proposal?
What are your background checks that you deem more reasonable than current requirements?
Come on, you want something done, lay out some details so everyone can make their own determination of the reasonableness of your proposal.
September 2nd, 2015 at 3:23 pm
Shame on the media for all too eagerly pushing this guy in front of a camera to deliver his Mel Gibson Ransom speech. I’m inclined to agree with blabbledorf that he is way to eager to put his face on this. Less about his daughter, more about him.