Hurr Durr if there were more guns allowed the this bad terrible thing wouldn't.

 There were mass stabbings at a community college near my house. If guns had been allowed on campus, it would have ended after the first one. Outlawing guns does not make the crazy less crazy.

A) How many people died?

If guns were allowed on campus wouldn't he just use a gun instead and kill people easier. 

 

Allowing guns just makes the crazy people more dangerous.

Most campuses are weapon free, so the knife or knives would also be barred from the campus.

Going back to the video.

 

At one point he clearly raises his gun at the reporter and then puts it back down.

 

I don't know why, but I feel I would've atleast seen that from the corner of my eyes and reacted then, I read some conspiracy theories lol

 

 

Aye...that is what has struct me very confused as well.  I just couldn't imagine not even at least glancing quickly or peeking over with my eye.  I get I'm not a trained reporter, and if that's what they're taught then I guess I get it, however when something or someone appears in my peripheral vision I think most humans would at least peek over with their eye for a quick second to see what or who it is, especially as I feel if someone pulls up something and seems to be pointing something at you, that you'd glance over.  And even more, the person being interviewed who was more squared to the individual didn't even glance over.  I don't know how one would not react to someone in their line of sight, especially when he held up he gun and then took it down. 

 

That truely boggled my mind, and it just seems so odd, as my wife instantly said the same thing when she watched it (thought it might only be me).  Not that it would of mattered, had they saw it early and reacted he just would've open fire sooner, but still.  The other thing that struct me odd was his first shot seemed to have missed, even the second seemed to, as the reporter started to run away.  Just seems odd someone can miss two shots (or at least not hit them well enough to stop them from running), yet was able to shoot a moving target on the run.  Reports have said the two were shot in the head.

 

Then you got the people coming out of their houses with their tin foil hats claiming false flag.  I don't believe them, but there are some oddities that at least make one ponder.  

 

Going back to the video.

 

At one point he clearly raises his gun at the reporter and then puts it back down.

 

I don't know why, but I feel I would've atleast seen that from the corner of my eyes and reacted then, I read some conspiracy theories lol

 

 

Aye...that is what has struct me very confused as well.  I just couldn't imagine not even at least glancing quickly or peeking over with my eye.  I get I'm not a trained reporter, and if that's what they're taught then I guess I get it, however when something or someone appears in my peripheral vision I think most humans would at least peek over with their eye for a quick second to see what or who it is, especially as I feel if someone pulls up something and seems to be pointing something at you, that you'd glance over.  And even more, the person being interviewed who was more squared to the individual didn't even glance over.  I don't know how one would not react to someone in their line of sight, especially when he held up he gun and then took it down. 

 

That truely boggled my mind, and it just seems so odd, as my wife instantly said the same thing when she watched it (thought it might only be me).  Not that it would of mattered, had they saw it early and reacted he just would've open fire sooner, but still.  The other thing that struct me odd was his first shot seemed to have missed, even the second seemed to, as the reporter started to run away.  Just seems odd someone can miss two shots (or at least not hit them well enough to stop them from running), yet was able to shoot a moving target on the run.  Reports have said the two were shot in the head.

 

Then you got the people coming out of their houses with their tin foil hats claiming false flag.  I don't believe them, but there are some oddities that at least make one ponder.  

 

It's very weird, it's like they had no reaction at all to the shooter's appearance, it makes it even harder to take in, knowing no one else seemed to be in the scene and a random character comes out of nowhere and they didn't even seem to acknowledge him

 

Re your second paragraph.

 

I was thinking the same, but it's probably just adrenaline or something (can a science guy verify this?), I just don't really see how you can miss at such close range

 

You see all these police shootings and you see the victims running away for a while until their adrenaline dies out and their body feels the effect and they eventually collapse.

 

The sound of the gunfire, probably kicked off her adrenaline before the bullet even hit her body (can someone verify this too) 

 

 

Going back to the video.

 

At one point he clearly raises his gun at the reporter and then puts it back down.

 

I don't know why, but I feel I would've atleast seen that from the corner of my eyes and reacted then, I read some conspiracy theories lol

 

 

Aye...that is what has struct me very confused as well.  I just couldn't imagine not even at least glancing quickly or peeking over with my eye.  I get I'm not a trained reporter, and if that's what they're taught then I guess I get it, however when something or someone appears in my peripheral vision I think most humans would at least peek over with their eye for a quick second to see what or who it is, especially as I feel if someone pulls up something and seems to be pointing something at you, that you'd glance over.  And even more, the person being interviewed who was more squared to the individual didn't even glance over.  I don't know how one would not react to someone in their line of sight, especially when he held up he gun and then took it down. 

 

That truely boggled my mind, and it just seems so odd, as my wife instantly said the same thing when she watched it (thought it might only be me).  Not that it would of mattered, had they saw it early and reacted he just would've open fire sooner, but still.  The other thing that struct me odd was his first shot seemed to have missed, even the second seemed to, as the reporter started to run away.  Just seems odd someone can miss two shots (or at least not hit them well enough to stop them from running), yet was able to shoot a moving target on the run.  Reports have said the two were shot in the head.

 

Then you got the people coming out of their houses with their tin foil hats claiming false flag.  I don't believe them, but there are some oddities that at least make one ponder.  

 

Re your second paragraph.

 

I was thinking the same, but it's probably just adrenaline or something (can a science guy verify this?), I just don't really see how you can miss at such close range

 

You see all these police shootings and you see the victims running away for a while until their adrenaline dies out and their body feels the effect and they eventually collapse.

 

The sound of the gunfire, probably kicked off her adrenaline before the bullet even hit her body (can someone verify this too) 

 

 

 

Yea I would imagine adrenaline would kick in, especially if a shot didn't hit them in something that would cause them to not be able to move (head or leg would probably prevent from running).  I can't really say because I've never been shot to know, but the first shot and how the reporter reacted seemed more of a reaction to the noise and likely the bullet just missing them as I would think you'd react instantly to grabbing the part of the body that was struck....had it hit her arm (grasping it), hit her chest (bending over from pain).  If both people who died, died from gun shots to the head, I would almost have to think they were hit somewhere else and he later walked up and shot them in the head.

I believe the first shot hit her. I can't imagine the horror of suddenly hearing shots and seeing someone pointing the gun my way, I have been lucky enough to never be in that position. I have been in the position of pointing a gun at someone but I was lucky enough again to not have to use it. I have heard that getting shot happens so quick that you can't feel it at first, but it hurts really bad after you realize you have been shot. When Ronald Reagan was shot... no one knew he really got hit until they were well down the road.

I'm not adding to the conspiracy, but even if the reporter is trained on focusing and not letting her attention wander. The person she was interviewing was probably not trained in this. From the video she had a pretty good view of the shooter out of the corner of her eye. 

 

 

 

Going back to the video.

 

At one point he clearly raises his gun at the reporter and then puts it back down.

 

I don't know why, but I feel I would've atleast seen that from the corner of my eyes and reacted then, I read some conspiracy theories lol

 

 

Aye...that is what has struct me very confused as well.  I just couldn't imagine not even at least glancing quickly or peeking over with my eye.  I get I'm not a trained reporter, and if that's what they're taught then I guess I get it, however when something or someone appears in my peripheral vision I think most humans would at least peek over with their eye for a quick second to see what or who it is, especially as I feel if someone pulls up something and seems to be pointing something at you, that you'd glance over.  And even more, the person being interviewed who was more squared to the individual didn't even glance over.  I don't know how one would not react to someone in their line of sight, especially when he held up he gun and then took it down. 

 

That truely boggled my mind, and it just seems so odd, as my wife instantly said the same thing when she watched it (thought it might only be me).  Not that it would of mattered, had they saw it early and reacted he just would've open fire sooner, but still.  The other thing that struct me odd was his first shot seemed to have missed, even the second seemed to, as the reporter started to run away.  Just seems odd someone can miss two shots (or at least not hit them well enough to stop them from running), yet was able to shoot a moving target on the run.  Reports have said the two were shot in the head.

 

Then you got the people coming out of their houses with their tin foil hats claiming false flag.  I don't believe them, but there are some oddities that at least make one ponder.  

 

Re your second paragraph.

 

I was thinking the same, but it's probably just adrenaline or something (can a science guy verify this?), I just don't really see how you can miss at such close range

 

You see all these police shootings and you see the victims running away for a while until their adrenaline dies out and their body feels the effect and they eventually collapse.

 

The sound of the gunfire, probably kicked off her adrenaline before the bullet even hit her body (can someone verify this too) 

 

 

 

Yea I would imagine adrenaline would kick in, especially if a shot didn't hit them in something that would cause them to not be able to move (head or leg would probably prevent from running).  I can't really say because I've never been shot to know, but the first shot and how the reporter reacted seemed more of a reaction to the noise and likely the bullet just missing them as I would think you'd react instantly to grabbing the part of the body that was struck....had it hit her arm (grasping it), hit her chest (bending over from pain).  If both people who died, died from gun shots to the head, I would almost have to think they were hit somewhere else and he later walked up and shot them in the head.

 

 

I believe the first shot hit her. I can't imagine the horror of suddenly hearing shots and seeing someone pointing the gun my way, I have been lucky enough to never be in that position. I have been in the position of pointing a gun at someone but I was lucky enough again to not have to use it. I have heard that getting shot happens so quick that you can't feel it at first, but it hurts really bad after you realize you have been shot. When Ronald Reagan was shot... no one knew he really got hit until they were well down the road.

Often when people are shot just once or twice, the shock and adrenaline can keep them going for a while without much physical reaction. From what I hear, you don't really feel the bullet hit you. More like it suddenly feels on fire after a few seconds. I think the first shot probably hit her and then maybe the third one. 

I'm not adding to the conspiracy, but even if the reporter is trained on focusing and not letting her attention wander. The person she was interviewing was probably not trained in this. From the video she had a pretty good view of the shooter out of the corner of her eye. 

THE GOVERNMENT PLANNED THIS AND THE REPORTERS ARE SCAPEGOATS.

 

#WhiteLivesMatterToo #conspiracy

 

Hurr Durr if there were more guns allowed the this bad terrible thing wouldn't.

 There were mass stabbings at a community college near my house. If guns had been allowed on campus, it would have ended after the first one. Outlawing guns does not make the crazy less crazy.

A) How many people died?

If guns were allowed on campus wouldn't he just use a gun instead and kill people easier. 

 

Allowing guns just makes the crazy people more dangerous.

Most campuses are weapon free, so the knife or knives would also be barred from the campus.

 

Isn't the campus the student accommodation as well. 

If it's owned by the school

I believe the first shot hit her. I can't imagine the horror of suddenly hearing shots and seeing someone pointing the gun my way, I have been lucky enough to never be in that position. I have been in the position of pointing a gun at someone but I was lucky enough again to not have to use it. I have heard that getting shot happens so quick that you can't feel it at first, but it hurts really bad after you realize you have been shot. When Ronald Reagan was shot... no one knew he really got hit until they were well down the road.

 

 

Aye, what I've heard and seen portrayed in the many war movies I've seen too (not that they're perfectly accurate).  But I've heard of people not getting shot and or believing they were and will actually feel around their body to actually see if they were in fact hit or not.  No one can truely say how one would react, I would imagine that would vary between individuals as well....just from first glance and her reaction it looked like it missed.  I imagine if I took the video and slowed it down you could maybe see.

 

 

I did my best to push pause at the perfect time, because I don't want to take the time to actually get it perfect in a program like vegas

 

http://i59.tinypic.com/2qs9ldw.png

 

 

From that shot, if it actually hit her, I think only chance would of been her arm, maybe shoulder...she's sideways to him and the gun is pointed more out from her body...my guess would be he hit the board coming down or the building behind her.  You can tell when he shoots he is pulling the gun as he pulls back the trigger.  Pretty hard to be accurate even that close one handed and the body not square to you.  The other shots that you can actually see are similar, but seem like they could possibly of hit. 

 

I'm not adding to the conspiracy, but even if the reporter is trained on focusing and not letting her attention wander. The person she was interviewing was probably not trained in this. From the video she had a pretty good view of the shooter out of the corner of her eye. 

 

I really don't want to believe a conspiracy like this, but there is a lot of things that happened that at least make me ponder it.  I'm not going to sit here and say I believe it's fake or that guy, but nonetheless I will at least address why the possibility is possible.

 

Totally agree, the person being interviewed is not trained for that, and she didn't glance over once, not as he walked up, not as he held the gun up.  He held the gun up for a few seconds, and I just rewatched it, and he was like all but 2-3 feet away and the gun wasn't blocked from the cameraman either.  If someone pointed or was holding their hand up like that, as someone being interviewed I know for a fact I'd look over as it would catch my eye, and I'd have to know 1.  Who is this person that's come up  2.  Why is his hand raised up, is he trying to give the interviewer something?  Even being trained, I still think the interviewer would at least look as I mentioned already, glance over with an eye or something.  Maybe I'm just different, but I feel had I or anyone else been the one being interviewed, we would of glanced.

 

2.  The guy buys a camera...he films a few shots, and it drops.  I mean if I was going to spend the time to film it, I would of think I at least held on to the camera (it would probably look like the blair witch project) but still would.  It just was dropped or whatever conveniently after, and in the wrong direction.  I also would think such a sicko like this guy, he obviously had to come back for the camera, would of at least went over and filmed them dead on the ground.

 

3.  Looking at the live broadcast from the TV station and his video.  Shot's are fired, from his video you can see that all the shots were aimed at the interviewer.  Yet between the first shot and the second the cameraman for the TV station's camera was already starting to lower towards the ground (can't be because he was hit).  And look how it fell, it was a nice slowly fall, like it was placed down, not a sudden quick drop like if he dropped the camera or he was shot and it fell.  Not only that, a big camera like that, had it just been dropped, it would easily bounce quite a bit when it did, yet as it hit the ground and come to rest it looked pretty stable.  Both cameras, the shooter and the TV's both fell perfectly angling backwards and not pointed any other direction, or where it could pick up what happened next.  Also, if I was a cameraman, and a gun like that just went off a foot or so from my ear when I wasn't expecting it, I'd jump like crazy (think most people can say they would), and thus you'd see quite a big flinch in his video feed, yet it didn't.

 

4.  Think I heard it was the interviewers last day.  Kinda convenient on her last day it could happen to her, so it was not like she'd be expected to be seen on TV tomorrow.  Since she was leaving as it is, shes a perfect one to then move and start somewhere new under a new look/alias.  

 

Personally, do I think our Government is beyond pulling a stunt like this, not at all.  I could easily see such an elaborate plan orchestrated to push an agenda.  That being said, why I never believe these types of things, even though somethings to me seem a little odd is simply because who honestly would sign up for this?  I mean, there is too many people around them to be able to tie up all the loose ends.  Literally, if the people killed really weren't, they would either have to go away from their whole family/friends/etc and never talk to them again, or at least their families would have to know, and be ok with, and never have it slip out.  And what about the funeral, they going to bury nothing?  I mean I get it likely wouldn't be a open casket if they were shot in the head (the conspiracy theorists could likely say they said they were shot in the head so no one would actually see there was a body), but still.  And not only that, all the police officers who likely responded, and the paramedics would all have to go along with it.  

 

Just too many moving objects that would have to be perfect, and too many people to be in on it to pull something like this off.  And who would sign up to do this in the first place?  Who would want to sign up to fake be killed and have to start a new life with new identity....just to push some agenda, and are you telling me the Government just went to the station asking people to do it...and if so, what if they said no?  

 

Why I never give in to these theories, not that I don't think our Government wouldn't try something like that if they could, but it's just to elaborate to pull off, and too many people to control to never come out it was fake.  Sure I think there is some oddities of the situation that could make me ponder the possibility, but then I think what all would have to happen to do it, and I sum it up to who knows how people would react to being shot or hearing a shot or different aspects of a shooting to truly know.

 

So after all my rambling, I don't think it's possible to be fake, and it's very sad what happened.

People, especially those without firearm experience, have a lot of misconceptions about their use and results. I don't see anything odd in her reaction, personally. Like others have said, guns are a lot harder to aim than people realize, especially if you haven't trained with it (which is the case for most madmen).

 

I can tell you from my time hunting that I have:

1. Seen deer ignore a gunshot.

2. Seen deer ignore another deer dying of a gunshot.

4. Seen deer flee and then return to the spot of a gunshot.

5. Seen a deer run a hundred yards after being hit in the heart.

6. Seen a deer run close to three hundred yards after being hit in the shoulder (later analysis revealed internal organs OK).

 

The problem is that our instinctual responses are built to counter predators at least half our size. A gun often makes very little noise and may not even sound out of place in a high traffic area. A jackhammer can be louder than a 9mm. I've heard people describe being shot as approximating a beesting or even a shove, if it's a small round. Larger rounds will obviously hurt more.

 

A good rule of thumb is a basic rule of physics, "For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction". If a gun doesn't kick much (the reaction), it won't have a lot of energy going into the target (the action). Granted, the bullet is much smaller than the butt of the gun, but you can't expect knockdown force if the shooter doesn't get much force, either.

 

At the same time, a gun can only injure based on shot location and the size of the hole it puts in you. People survive gunshots all the time, especially from smaller caliber weapons. Doctors don't even cut out the bullet unless they absolutely have to. They'll just sew you up and tell you to avoid MRIs. (Trivia time: modern doctors say that Abraham Lincoln died because of his medical care, not his bullet wound). The human body is a hardy but callous thing, with redundancies all over the place. Getting a piece of metal lodged in your shoulder takes several seconds to recognize and doesn't even stop that arm. Pain is an imperfect communicator.

 

That's why I keep the crowd pleaser at home. It kicks like a mule, but I'll have enough adrenaline & training to take it, plus I should (and need) to take out invaders in one-to-two shots at their center of mass.

Those with less gun experience, this is how you are suppose to shoot

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a5Qth5BPRk

 

Just kidding of course.

 

Yea I've had similar experience while deer hunting as well duderonomy

If we could just improve our mental health system and not make people be afraid of getting mental health help then I bet this problem would decrease a lot.

This actually happened like 20 minutes away from where I live.

 

Can confirm shooter was nutcase. 

"So what you gonna do, go ban an AK? My shit wasn't registred any-f**-way!" - Ice Cube.

http://i.imgur.com/gziBhy9.jpg

 

I win