Journalism fail - national park ranger shot

RetiredOC · Jan 2, 2012

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017143010_ranger02m.html?syndication=rss
snip

A man who was being sought in the shooting of four people at a New Year's party in South King County early Sunday is suspected in the fatal shooting of a park ranger in Mount Rainier National Park later in the morning.

Park Ranger Margaret Anderson, a mother of two who was married to another ranger at the park, was shot about 10:30 a.m. after setting up a roadblock to stop a car that was fleeing another officer.

She was shot when the driver apparently stepped out of the vehicle with a shotgun and opened fire. It took authorities nearly 90 minutes to get to her because the assailant continued to fire an assault rifle at Pierce County SWAT team officers as they tried to assist the injured ranger, officials said.

The fail...(IMO, maybe you think this is why the shooting was able to take place.):

Congress lifted a ban on carrying loaded guns in national parks in February 2010 amid warnings by critics that the action would lead to gun violence and poaching.

Seriously? This is implying that a ban on loaded guns would stop this guy. O_O Isn't there already a ban on shooting park rangers and fleeing form law enforcement?

Kirbinator · Jan 2, 2012

I'm so glad this article came out. We need gun bans to stop criminals from shooting at police while fleeing arrest. :banghead:

thieltech · Jan 2, 2012

Schlitz said:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017143010_ranger02m.html?syndication=rss
snip

The fail...(IMO, maybe you think this is why the shooting was able to take place.):

Seriously? This is implying that a ban on loaded guns would stop this guy. O_O Isn't there already a ban on shooting park rangers and fleeing form law enforcement?

. YOU SIR NAILED THAT ONE ON THE HEAD !! The ANTI GUN'S will use anything and everything to strike down the 2nd amendment ....

in my opinion this journalist is pathetic for even putting it like that . FAIL:shocker:

shastadude17 · Jan 2, 2012

This is an absolute tragedy, and I know I'm going to be flamed to no end for this, but this really just proves that public places are absolutely no place for firearms. I'm all for firearms ownership and defense in the home and your vehicle, but if there is any chance that a ban on firearms in National Parks still in effect would have stopped this heinous crime, a wife, mother, and protector of the innocent would still be alive today. I don't think you *need* a firearm when you're grocery shopping or at Wal Mart, but that's a little off topic. Can someone please tell me a justifiable reason why anyone would need a firearm in a National Park? They have Park Rangers for a reason, as well as designated trails to mitigate the chance of running into dangerous wildlife. This all could have been avoided if sensible gun control was left in effect. I hope the Brady Campaign tears this apart./troll

rscottie · Jan 2, 2012

It is not just the Seattle Times with poor reporting.

Below is what is on Foxnews.com and appears to have taken most of the report from the AP.

"It has been legal for people to take loaded firearms into Mount Rainier since 2010, when a federal law went into effect that made possession of firearms in national parks subject to state gun laws.

Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision to allow loaded weapons in national parks. He called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010, but doubts that will happen in today's political climate."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/0...al-park-ranger-shot-and-killed/#ixzz1iKZeAx3M

I am curious to how Sunday's fatal shooting could have been prevented by a gun buster sign?

SovereignAxe · Jan 2, 2012

shastadude17 said:
This is an absolute tragedy, and I know I'm going to be flamed to no end for this, but this really just proves that public places are absolutely no place for firearms. I'm all for firearms ownership and defense in the home and your vehicle, but if there is any chance that a ban on firearms in National Parks still in effect would have stopped this heinous crime, a wife, mother, and protector of the innocent would still be alive today. I don't think you *need* a firearm when you're grocery shopping or at Wal Mart, but that's a little off topic. Can someone please tell me a justifiable reason why anyone would need a firearm in a National Park? They have Park Rangers for a reason, as well as designated trails to mitigate the chance of running into dangerous wildlife. This all could have been avoided if sensible gun control was left in effect. I hope the Brady Campaign tears this apart./troll

can't tell if serious troll or not, so here goes.

This one's easy. To give ourselves a chance at defending ourselves against a psycho like the guy in the story.

But I have a question for you, Mr. shastadudetroll. What makes you think having a ban on guns in the park is going to stop some dude that already has the wherewithal to shoot someone in the first place? Do you really think he's going to care? This guy is probably illegally in posession of this gun in the first place.

As for the "Park Rangers for a reason" statement, I have another question for you: How long do you think the shooter is going to wait while I call up the park rangers to come stop him? How is having a park ranger halfway across the park going to help me when I have about 5 seconds left to live?

If you're serious, these are serious questions I'd like to know the answers to.

Aknazer · Jan 2, 2012

shastadude17 said:
This is an absolute tragedy, and I know I'm going to be flamed to no end for this, but this really just proves that public places are absolutely no place for firearms. I'm all for firearms ownership and defense in the home and your vehicle, but if there is any chance that a ban on firearms in National Parks still in effect would have stopped this heinous crime, a wife, mother, and protector of the innocent would still be alive today. I don't think you *need* a firearm when you're grocery shopping or at Wal Mart, but that's a little off topic. Can someone please tell me a justifiable reason why anyone would need a firearm in a National Park? They have Park Rangers for a reason, as well as designated trails to mitigate the chance of running into dangerous wildlife. This all could have been avoided if sensible gun control was left in effect. I hope the Brady Campaign tears this apart./troll

You know what else could have stopped this? A law against killing people. Or a law that makes it illegal to carry without a permit. Or a background check...oh wait. There are laws on the books already in regards to these things and they didn't stop him. So what makes you think another law would have magically stopped him?

PrayingForWar · Jan 2, 2012

Aknazer said:
You know what else could have stopped this? A law against killing people. Or a law that makes it illegal to carry without a permit. Or a background check...oh wait. There are laws on the books already in regards to these things and they didn't stop him. So what makes you think another law would have magically stopped him?

I couldn't have said it better.

shastadude17 · Jan 2, 2012

I was trolling...hence /troll

RetiredOC · Jan 2, 2012

shastadude17 said:
/troll

SovereignAxe said:
can't tell if serious troll or not, so here goes.

shastadude17 said:
/troll

Aknazer said:
So what makes you think another law would have magically stopped him?

shastadude17 said:
/troll

PrayingForWar said:
I couldn't have said it better.

shastadude17 said:
/troll

I get the feeling that this guy was being sarcastic....you know...since the post ended with /troll, like some end with /sarcasm....

1245A Defender · Jan 3, 2012

well,,,

Schlitz said:
I get the feeling that this guy was being sarcastic....you know...since the post ended with /troll, like some end with /sarcasm....

I enjoyed his post,,, i could smell the sarcazm as i read,,, when at the end I saw /troll,,, I knew I was right.

Aknazer · Jan 3, 2012

Schlitz said:
I get the feeling that this guy was being sarcastic....you know...since the post ended with /troll, like some end with /sarcasm....

/sarcasm would work better. Just because someone is trolling doesn't mean that they don't actually feel the way that they are sounding, it just means that they are purposely trying to rile others up. And when he did /troll I took it as him stating that he was either purposely trolling us, or he was expecting to get called a troll. As this is the internet it can sometimes be hard to tell one's intentions

Beretta92FSLady · Jan 3, 2012

shastadude17 said:
This is an absolute tragedy, and I know I'm going to be flamed to no end for this, but this really just proves that public places are absolutely no place for firearms. I'm all for firearms ownership and defense in the home and your vehicle, but if there is any chance that a ban on firearms in National Parks still in effect would have stopped this heinous crime, a wife, mother, and protector of the innocent would still be alive today. I don't think you *need* a firearm when you're grocery shopping or at Wal Mart, but that's a little off topic. Can someone please tell me a justifiable reason why anyone would need a firearm in a National Park? They have Park Rangers for a reason, as well as designated trails to mitigate the chance of running into dangerous wildlife. This all could have been avoided if sensible gun control was left in effect. I hope the Brady Campaign tears this apart./troll

I wonder what the arrival time of a Ranger in the woods is...downtown Seattle is a few minutes, Rangers must be at least an hour. Maybe if you were being attacked by a turtle?!

09jisaac · Jan 4, 2012

On stumbleupon.com I have found this story 4 or so times, each talk about how the law was changed. And some had comments asking why that was in there.

I don't think anyone believes that, in this case, it would have helped to have made the carrying of guns in a national park illegal. But if you prod it around in peoples minds you can move them very fast in the direction you want them to go. But that is the right of a journalist, as long as it isn't slander they have the right to print/post it.

PrayingForWar · Jan 6, 2012

Schlitz said:
I get the feeling that this guy was being sarcastic....you know...since the post ended with /troll, like some end with /sarcasm....

Hence my brief response.

Journalism fail - national park ranger shot

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

Kirbinator

Regular Member

thieltech

Regular Member

shastadude17

Regular Member

rscottie

Regular Member

SovereignAxe

Regular Member

Aknazer

Regular Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

shastadude17

Regular Member

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

1245A Defender

Regular Member

Aknazer

Regular Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

09jisaac

Regular Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member