9 Killed in Black Church Shooting in South Carolina

[Spurminator]

And another predictable response...

NRA Board Member: Slain Pastor Is to Blame for Deaths in Charleston Shooting

We saw this coming, yet it is still shocking: Less than 24 hours after Dylann Storm Roof murdered nine people (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35793/charleston-shooting-discussion/)—including South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney—inside a Charleston church, NRA board member Charles Cotton (http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/17405/charles-cotton/) blamed the deaths on… South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney.
Writing on TexasCHLForum.com, a forum at which he is an administrator, Cotton stated (http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=78200&p=994380&hilit=Charleston#p994380), "[Pinckney] voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue."

Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, Mr. Cotton, what if the late Pastor Pinckney wasn't a character from a lazily-written action film? What if he, as most human beings might when suddenly thrown into a disorienting maelstrom of random violence, had missed after pulling out his concealed handgun? And what if he'd hit another innocent church-goer?
Or what if he'd dropped the gun while fumbling for it amid all the chaos? What if a kid or someone in shock from the mayhem had picked it up and tried to be a hero? What if someone walking by had heard the gunfire inside the church and stopped by with their Glock? How would the good guys have known whether this new guy was a good guy or a bad guy?
How many bullets do we need to fire into a hail of bullets before we say enough?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a35827/nra-charles-cotton-blames-charleston-shooting-pastor/

[vy65]

Neh, just a sidebar on a crazy comment that you didn't think through before posting, Ripper.

Is calling me the ripper supposed to be an insult? because it doesn't come off that way at all

[vy65]

The problem with legal rape is you can't really do it in a vacuum. Is it assault to knock her out first? Or is assault allowable as a precursor to sexual assault?

I mean, they usually give a +1 if you've started your move to the basket, even though you're not technically in a shooting motion, right?

[Winehole23]

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/gun-control/

[vy65]

Uh it helps deter people from becoming criminals.

Like you, Ripper.

Congrats on just now figuring out my point.




I'm specifically looking at the South Carolina policy that allows private sales of guns to happen without background checks.

Cracking down on that bullshit policy would be a solid start here.

Maybe so, maybe no. Some measure of control might help in other circumstances - but this fool pretty clearly was gonna kill him some nigs regardless of how stringent or lax SC's gun control laws are.

[boutons_deux]

white Christian supremacists LYING about persecution of Christians

white gun fellators LYING about guns NOT killing people.

Repugs groveling to both groups AND ignoring that BLACKs were killed because they were BLACK, not because they were Christians

Absolutely no such sicko crap on the non-Repug side of the country.

[Splits]

where are you getting that from?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/

[Clipper Nation]

That is an answer. You can have strict, effective gun control and not outlaw guns, as has been successfully done in Australia. This kid walked into a gun store and out with a .45. A real background check would have prevented that from happening.
Australia does not have effective gun control. Since they implemented it, assaults have increased by 40%, sexual assaults have increased by 20%, and armed robberies have increased by 20%. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms have increased by 300%. A University of Melbourne study found that gun control has had no significant effect on the national rate of gun homicides. (http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/publications/working-paper-series/abstract-178.html) Australia is no safer than they were before gun control.

[Winehole23]

counterpoint: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390 (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390)

[Splits]

Australia does not have effective gun control. Since they implemented it, assaults have increased by 40%, sexual assaults have increased by 20%, and armed robberies have increased by 20%. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms have increased by 300%. A University of Melbourne study found that gun control has had no significant effect on the national rate of gun homicides. (http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/publications/working-paper-series/abstract-178.html) Australia is no safer than they were before gun control.

Abstract

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.

Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.

Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.

Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

[Clipper Nation]

The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

[Winehole23]

we ain't Australia

[Clipper Nation]

we ain't Australia
Exactly, so libtards should stop pointing to Australia and their failed gun control laws to justify their agenda.

[Splits]

we ain't Australia

That's right, we're PROUD of our mass shootings!

USA! USA!

[Winehole23]

Exactly, so libtards should stop pointing to Australia and their failed gun control laws to justify their agenda.pointing at Australia supports you less than you think, first of all because it's cherry-picking: the comparison with Europe is hardly so favorable.

also, similar policies will vary in their effects from country to country for political, social and cultural reasons. what didn't work in Australia might have beneficial effects here. what works in Europe might not work here.

[DPG21920]

That's right, we're PROUD of our mass shootings!

USA! USA!
Blake didn't answer this earlier & maybe you can because you have a similar opinion, but in a state like GA with these laws, are these shooting more common than in other states with stricter gun laws?

Also, even in GA with these gun laws, do these types of shootings outweigh other crimes/murders by non-guns? Just trying to assess whether the problem is gun law or racisim.

[m>s]

No, shootings are most common in places with the strictest gun control like Chicago and New York

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oh he did legally buy a gun? Guess that changes nothing from the gun nuts, they'll obfuscate and come up with another excuse.

You can't legally buy a gun as a felon. And if he did in fact buy it from a gun store South Carolina dealers are required to do background checks so either the gun dealer committed a crime, the background check failed to show his felony (:lol), or his father bought the gun and gifted to him.

http://smartgunlaws.org/background-checks-in-south-carolina/

[CosmicCowboy]

pointing at Australia supports you less than you think, first of all because it's cherry-picking: the comparison with Europe is hardly so favorable.

also, similar policies will vary in their effects from country to country for political, social and cultural reasons. what didn't work in Australia might have beneficial effects here. what works in Europe might not work here.

I agree with this

Does Australia have a similar urban black population? Considering 54% of US murders are committed by 12% of the population that is a pretty significant difference when comparing statistics between Australia and the US.

[boutons_deux]

"I am Irish. For many years in my native land the Rev. Ian Paisley spouted bigoted hatred about Catholics in Northern Ireland, but then claimed innocence when some militant sectarian group massacred Catholics. Speech was not murder, he said. He would never condone killing, he said. Then he went right back to feeding the attitudes that spawned the killing. Few were fooled.

We should not be fooled in America today.

In this country the "mainstream" right-wing has made an industry of demonizing African-Americans as "thugs" and criminals - just look at the divergence in tone between the recent coverage of Ferguson or Baltimore and the (mostly white) biker massacre in Waco, TX. For decades, white America has been told that black Americans are lazy leeches, dependent on hand-outs funded by your hard-earned taxes to bankroll their immoral lifestyles.

The first black president was greeted by the right not only with diehard obstructionism but a chorus of color-coded abuse ("lazy," "food-stamp president" etc) and questions about his very American-ness: he was "not one of us," a foreigner adhering to a foreign religion who has no right to be president.

The siren song of racial hate relentlessly put out by the "mainstream" right finds echo in the gunshots that rang out in Charleston.

Rightists will, of course, deny the connection, the way Paisley did. But we are not fooled."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/18/1394488/-New-York-Times-Commenter-Beautifully-Exposes-America-s-Racist-Mainstream-Right?detail=email

[boutons_deux]

Thanks to Charleston shootings Wall Street Journal declares institutionalized racism over (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394598/-Thanks-to-Charleston-shootings-Wall-Street-Journal-declares-institutionalized-racism-over)


Sure, the WSJ editors admit (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-charleston-shooting-1434669812), it might remind us of the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. But everything is different now:


Back then and before, the institutions of government—police, courts, organized segregation—often worked to protect perpetrators of racially motivated violence, rather than their victims.

The universal condemnation of the murders at the Emanuel AME Church and Dylann Roof’s quick capture by the combined efforts of local, state and federal police is a world away from what President Obama recalled as “a dark part of our history.” Today the system and philosophy of institutionalized racism identified by Dr. King no longer exists.


The government condemns the murder of nine black people at a Bible study, therefore institutionalized racism no longer exists. Problem solved! Racism is in the past, at least as anything other than some weird individual thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394598/-Thanks-to-Charleston-shootings-Wall-Street-Journal-declares-institutionalized-racism-over?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Murdoch toilet paper rag speaks.

[boutons_deux]

dumb as sand, and twice as tone deaf, JimmyRicky fucks up

Rick Perry Says Obama Administration Always Overreacts To ‘Accidents’ Like Charleston Shooting

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/19/3672122/rick-perry-says-obama-administration-always-overreacts-accidents-like-charleston-shooting/

[boutons_deux]

Frequent Fox guest: Whites might shoot up more black churches if Obama keeps calling them racist


http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jesse-Lee-Peterson-Facebook-800x430.png

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/frequent-fox-guest-whites-might-shoot-up-more-black-churches-if-obama-keeps-calling-them-racist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[TheSanityAnnex]

"I am Irish. For many years in my native land the Rev. Ian Paisley spouted bigoted hatred about Catholics in Northern Ireland, but then claimed innocence when some militant sectarian group massacred Catholics. Speech was not murder, he said. He would never condone killing, he said. Then he went right back to feeding the attitudes that spawned the killing. Few were fooled.

We should not be fooled in America today.

In this country the "mainstream" right-wing has made an industry of demonizing African-Americans as "thugs" and criminals - just look at the divergence in tone between the recent coverage of Ferguson or Baltimore and the (mostly white) biker massacre in Waco, TX. For decades, white America has been told that black Americans are lazy leeches, dependent on hand-outs funded by your hard-earned taxes to bankroll their immoral lifestyles.

The first black president was greeted by the right not only with diehard obstructionism but a chorus of color-coded abuse ("lazy," "food-stamp president" etc) and questions about his very American-ness: he was "not one of us," a foreigner adhering to a foreign religion who has no right to be president.

The siren song of racial hate relentlessly put out by the "mainstream" right finds echo in the gunshots that rang out in Charleston.

Rightists will, of course, deny the connection, the way Paisley did. But we are not fooled."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/18/1394488/-New-York-Times-Commenter-Beautifully-Exposes-America-s-Racist-Mainstream-Right?detail=email




http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249487

[TheSanityAnnex]

Thanks to Charleston shootings Wall Street Journal declares institutionalized racism over (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394598/-Thanks-to-Charleston-shootings-Wall-Street-Journal-declares-institutionalized-racism-over)


Sure, the WSJ editors admit (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-charleston-shooting-1434669812), it might remind us of the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. But everything is different now:


Back then and before, the institutions of government—police, courts, organized segregation—often worked to protect perpetrators of racially motivated violence, rather than their victims.

The universal condemnation of the murders at the Emanuel AME Church and Dylann Roof’s quick capture by the combined efforts of local, state and federal police is a world away from what President Obama recalled as “a dark part of our history.” Today the system and philosophy of institutionalized racism identified by Dr. King no longer exists.


The government condemns the murder of nine black people at a Bible study, therefore institutionalized racism no longer exists. Problem solved! Racism is in the past, at least as anything other than some weird individual thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394598/-Thanks-to-Charleston-shootings-Wall-Street-Journal-declares-institutionalized-racism-over?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Murdoch toilet paper rag speaks.




http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249487

[TheSanityAnnex]

dumb as sand, and twice as tone deaf, JimmyRicky fucks up

Rick Perry Says Obama Administration Always Overreacts To ‘Accidents’ Like Charleston Shooting

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/19/3672122/rick-perry-says-obama-administration-always-overreacts-accidents-like-charleston-shooting/



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249487

[TheSanityAnnex]

Frequent Fox guest: Whites might shoot up more black churches if Obama keeps calling them racist


http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jesse-Lee-Peterson-Facebook-800x430.png

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/frequent-fox-guest-whites-might-shoot-up-more-black-churches-if-obama-keeps-calling-them-racist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249487

[Medvedenko]

Bottom line. It's not a warped sense of gun culture that's propagating these killings. It's the culture of HATE that America embraces. You take away guns, the hate doesn't go away, it's just a tool that is used to perpetuate the sense of entitlement and lack of empathy for humanity. Racism, sexism, hell the way we talk about our sports teams on this board proves my point. You take that and add mental instability, you get incidents like this. It will never end. Guns or not.

[baseline bum]

Bottom line. It's not a warped sense of gun culture that's propagating these killings. It's the culture of HATE that America embraces. You take away guns, the hate doesn't go away, it's just a tool that is used to perpetuate the sense of entitlement and lack of empathy for humanity. Racism, sexism, hell the way we talk about our sports teams on this board proves my point. You take that and add mental instability, you get incidents like this. It will never end. Guns or not.

Shut the fuck up faggot

[Clipper Nation]

Bottom line. It's not a warped sense of gun culture that's propagating these killings. It's the culture of HATE that America embraces. You take away guns, the hate doesn't go away, it's just a tool that is used to perpetuate the sense of entitlement and lack of empathy for humanity. Racism, sexism, hell the way we talk about our sports teams on this board proves my point. You take that and add mental instability, you get incidents like this. It will never end. Guns or not.
Your frosted tips need to be banned, tbh.

[m>s]

Shut the fuck up faggot
Fight me communist kike

[baseline bum]

Fight me communist kike

__Yqedxr3Ng

[Infinite_limit]

Pathetic this kid didn't make a trip up to Baltimore or Ferguson. Would have been a hero.

Shooting up a building of prayer is lame and rather cowardly

[Medvedenko]

I take it my comment was telling and true.

[Blake]

Blake didn't answer this earlier & maybe you can because you have a similar opinion, but in a state like GA with these laws, are these shooting more common than in other states with stricter gun laws?

Also, even in GA with these gun laws, do these types of shootings outweigh other crimes/murders by non-guns? Just trying to assess whether the problem is gun law or racisim.

I'm not sure at all about stats but on face value, a required background check for all gun sales should be a no brainer.

[DPG21920]

I'm not sure at all about stats but on face value, a required background check for all gun sales should be a no brainer.

If these things are isolated (meaning gun deaths), it seems counterproductive to focus on gun laws when racism is the bigger issue.

[Aztecfan03]

Bottom line. It's not a warped sense of gun culture that's propagating these killings. It's the culture of HATE that America embraces. You take away guns, the hate doesn't go away, it's just a tool that is used to perpetuate the sense of entitlement and lack of empathy for humanity. Racism, sexism, hell the way we talk about our sports teams on this board proves my point. You take that and add mental instability, you get incidents like this. It will never end. Guns or not.


agreed. But hate and racism going all directions not just white racism towards blacks as the left likes to believe.

[vy65]

Bottom line. It's not a warped sense of gun culture that's propagating these killings. It's the culture of HATE that America embraces. You take away guns, the hate doesn't go away, it's just a tool that is used to perpetuate the sense of entitlement and lack of empathy for humanity. Racism, sexism, hell the way we talk about our sports teams on this board proves my point. You take that and add mental instability, you get incidents like this. It will never end. Guns or not.

#spurstalkpostsmatter

[Blake]

If these things are isolated (meaning gun deaths), it seems counterproductive to focus on gun laws when racism is the bigger issue.

I think it's productive enough to work on both issues.

but what do you propose be done about racism?

[DPG21920]

I think it's productive enough to work on both issues.

but what do you propose be done about racism?

Wasn't so much about "what can be done" - it's about not masking the real root cause.

[Blake]

Wasn't so much about "what can be done" - it's about not masking the real root cause.

well we all know racism exists. We can educate, make some hate crime laws and yeah I'm not sure there's much more.

so I'm good with focusing on how we can keep people like this from getting guns.

[DPG21920]

well we all know racism exists. We can educate, make some hate crime laws and yeah I'm not sure there's much more.

so I'm good with focusing on how we can keep people like this from getting guns.

Missing my point. Not trying to argue - just don't like seeing the real issue not discussed.

[Blake]

Missing my point. Not trying to argue - just don't like seeing the real issue not discussed.

Eh, if it wasn't racism, people would come up with some other reason to shoot each other, imo.

I think focusing on guns is more important imo

[Splits]

You can't legally buy a gun as a felon. And if he did in fact buy it from a gun store South Carolina dealers are required to do background checks so either the gun dealer committed a crime, the background check failed to show his felony (:lol), or his father bought the gun and gifted to him.

http://smartgunlaws.org/background-checks-in-south-carolina/

Get your facts straight. He wasn't a felon. He was charged with a felony. It was pending, not convicted.

[vy65]

Get your facts straight. He wasn't a felon. He was charged with a felony. It was pending, not convicted.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

[Splits]

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Rick Perry Attorneys Ask Texas Appeals Court To Toss Felony Case
https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/98571106.jpg

[vy65]

When was that picture taken dumbass?

[ElNono]

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Key word: "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe".

For completeness sake:

Section 3581. Sentence of imprisonment

(a) In General. - A defendant who has been found guilty of an
offense may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
(b) Authorized Terms. - The authorized terms of imprisonment are
-
(1) for a Class A felony, the duration of the defendant's life
or any period of time;
(2) for a Class B felony, not more than twenty-five years;
(3) for a Class C felony, not more than twelve years;
(4) for a Class D felony, not more than six years;
(5) for a Class E felony, not more than three years;

[vy65]

^ agreed on the knowledge element. I really haven't read much about this, but I find it hard to believe that the dad didn't know his sons pending felony charge.

[Splits]

^ agreed on the knowledge element. I really haven't read much about this, but I find it hard to believe that the dad didn't know his sons pending felony charge.

Dad didn't give him a gun. He bought it at a gun shop. Get your facts straight.

[Splits]

When was that picture taken dumbass?

So you're saying Rick Perry shouldn't be allowed to own a gun right now?

[vy65]

So you're saying Rick Perry shouldn't be allowed to own a gun right now?

I'm saying that it would be illegal for someone to sell him a firearm if he is still under indictment as per the above you fucking idiot.

When was that picture taken? I didn't catch your answer.

[pgardn]

Here is the list of European countries whose most recent murder rates exceeded the U.S.'s.
• Greenland (19.2)
• Russia (10.2)
• Moldova (7.5)
• Lithuania (6.6)
• Ukraine (5.2)
• Estonia (5.2)
• Belarus (4.9)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html#ixzz3dT4aa8fs


I took a closer look at this site.
Absolutely nothing to be proud of from this list.
And it's missing most of Western Europe because it's probably so low.

Holy shit, Ukraine is ahead of us in RECENT murder rates... Go figure.
Christ. I really pause to think if stricter gun control would do any good, these numbers don't help your argument at all. But because you are an honest conservative who wants to put legit numbers out you showed this to soften your position.

[Clipper Nation]

Typical libtards:

http://i.imgur.com/Cf6N0FG.png

[HI-FI]

Typical libtards:

http://i.imgur.com/Cf6N0FG.png
:lmao
reminds me of the semen shielding on here.

[m>s]

Typical libtards:

http://i.imgur.com/Cf6N0FG.png


DAMN where'd you find that, that's great material

[boutons_deux]

Here is the list of European countries whose most recent murder rates exceeded the U.S.'s.
• Greenland (19.2)
• Russia (10.2)
• Moldova (7.5)
• Lithuania (6.6)
• Ukraine (5.2)
• Estonia (5.2)
• Belarus (4.9)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html#ixzz3dT4aa8fs


:lol

How about choosing European countries where law and order are enforced, instead of former USSR shit piles? :lol

[Ignignokt]

:lol

How about choosing European countries where law and order are enforced, instead of former USSR shit piles? :lol

You Mean white homogenized societies over ones wrecked by kikes?

[unleashbaynes]

Just another mass shooting. We ain't gonna do nothing about it either.

[unleashbaynes]

:cry but i own guns! I've never killed anyone! :cry

Fuckin hate that argument. That's not how laws work. 95% of people can break a law and be fine. I could take a few hits if LSD and be fine. But there's that one dipshit out there that would do it and jump off a building. And that's why it's illegal. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can own guns responsibly. But it only takes one retard getting his hands on one and all of a sudden 10 people are dead in a matter of minutes. That is why having guns is absolutely stupid and they should be outlawed.

[CosmicCowboy]

:cry but i own guns! I've never killed anyone! :cry

Fuckin hate that argument. That's not how laws work. 95% of people can break a law and be fine. I could take a few hits if LSD and be fine. But there's that one dipshit out there that would do it and jump off a building. And that's why it's illegal. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can own guns responsibly. But it only takes one retard getting his hands on one and all of a sudden 10 people are dead in a matter of minutes. That is why having guns is absolutely stupid and they should be outlawed.

Lets outlaw cars while we are at it dipshit. They kill a lot more people every year than guns.

[Clipper Nation]

:cry but i own guns! I've never killed anyone! :cry

Fuckin hate that argument. That's not how laws work. 95% of people can break a law and be fine. I could take a few hits if LSD and be fine. But there's that one dipshit out there that would do it and jump off a building. And that's why it's illegal. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can own guns responsibly. But it only takes one retard getting his hands on one and all of a sudden 10 people are dead in a matter of minutes. That is why having guns is absolutely stupid and they should be outlawed.
More people are killed with fists every year than rifles. Sure, 95% of people go through life just fine with their fists intact, but there's always that one dipshit who snaps and beats someone to death with them. Clearly, we all need to have our hands cut off!

In before the "but, but, guns are only designed to kill unlike [insert object here]!" excuse, which is a.) untrue and b.) beyond the point.

And by the way, LSD isn't illegal because of "that one dipshit who would jump off a building." It's illegal because the government hasn't learned from the failure of Prohibition and still thinks they can legislate morality.

[Stingerer]

:cry but i own guns! I've never killed anyone! :cry

Fuckin hate that argument. That's not how laws work. 95% of people can break a law and be fine. I could take a few hits if LSD and be fine. But there's that one dipshit out there that would do it and jump off a building. And that's why it's illegal. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can own guns responsibly. But it only takes one retard getting his hands on one and all of a sudden 10 people are dead in a matter of minutes. That is why having guns is absolutely stupid and they should be outlawed.

I swear I've never really bought into the JIDF/shilling stuff as much as some, but if there really is such a thing some of you posters have to be shills. There's no way you're this dense.

> it only takes one retard who can't handle LSD

Yeah it also takes one idiot who can't handle alcohol and jumps off a building. Why don't we ban that too? Why not cars while we're at it? After all, it only takes one idiot to go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people.

And

>that's why LSD is illegal

kek'd. Stay blue pill, anon. But then again this is probably JIDF anyway.

































pic related

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1386/92/1386927756413.jpg

[Blake]

In before the "but, but, guns are only designed to kill unlike [insert object here]!" excuse, which is a.) untrue and b.) beyond the point.


What else are guns designed for

[Clipper Nation]

What else are guns designed for
There are plenty of guns and ammo designed for industrial purposes. For example, industrial shotguns are used in blast furnaces and lime kilns to remove deposits. Wadcutter bullets are used to puncture paper or as ammo for handgun competitions. Judging all firearms by the ones that are used to kill is like judging all vehicles by armored tanks with turrets.

But frankly, the point of bringing up cars, fists, etc. isn't to do a one-to-one comparison between the objects. It's done to point out that there are plenty of things that can be used to kill in the wrong hands, but we accept that risk because we value our freedom.

[Blake]

We accept the risk because we understand purpose of tools.

A .45 is designed to kill, not remove lime deposits.

[Clipper Nation]

Armored tanks with turrets are designed to kill. Ban all civilians from driving vehicles!

[boutons_deux]

Have any Repug politicians admitted the victims were killed because they were black (not because they were victims of the imagined War on Christians) and that the murderer was a white racist supremacist?

[CosmicCowboy]

A .45 can remove shit deposits in the right hands. Try to ban guns and only the shit will have guns.

[Stingerer]

We accept the risk because we understand purpose of tools.

A .45 is designed to kill, not remove lime deposits.

Guns are designed to kill, not sure what Clipper Nation is trying to deflect to.

But don't you think everyone has a right to protect themselves? If we get rid of guns, what do you do when some gangbanger shows up at your doorstep and you don't have time to call the police?

[ElNono]

http://bucket1.glanacion.com/anexos/fotos/36/tension-racial-en-estados-unidos-2055036w300.jpg

http://bucket1.glanacion.com/anexos/fotos/39/tension-racial-en-estados-unidos-2055039w645.jpg

[lefty]

http://bucket1.glanacion.com/anexos/fotos/36/tension-racial-en-estados-unidos-2055036w300.jpg

http://bucket1.glanacion.com/anexos/fotos/39/tension-racial-en-estados-unidos-2055039w645.jpg
m>s

[m>s]

American hero

[angrydude]

Anyone read his manifesto? Didn't really explain why he felt the answer was to start randomly murdering people in a church.

[angrydude]

Honestly, this is what happens when people without critical thinking skills "discover" things out of their depth.

[Winehole23]

I agree with this

Does Australia have a similar urban black population? Considering 54% of US murders are committed by 12% of the population that is a pretty significant difference when comparing statistics between Australia and the US.so then, presumably half of the murders could be eliminated by disarming blacks in the USA.

what about the other half? that's 5,000 or so gun related homicides yearly not including suicides. how do we solve that? doesn't the other half count too?

[Winehole23]

also, why not let the black on black violence continue? without gun control, eventually the blacks will kill enough of the other blacks to put a serious dent in the murder rate, right?

[Winehole23]

Anyone read his manifesto? Didn't really explain why he felt the answer was to start randomly murdering people in a church.It wasn't random. It was the anniversary of the Denmark Vesey rising in SC, and the massacre occurred in the same AME church, Denmark Vesey's church in Charleston.

[Winehole23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_Vesey

[Winehole23]

lagniappe:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/justified.png&w=1484

[Winehole23]

so much for arming up for protection against bad guys

[boutons_deux]

In response to the Boston bombing of 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham demanded that the government do everything it could to learn from the attack and prevent future attacks (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/21/1899231/top-conservatives-admit-boston-bombing-suspect-cannot-be-tried-in-military-tribunal/).


This man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of, and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. That evidence is used to protect us as a nation.


Many people took issue with Graham’s claim that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is a U.S. citizen, could be designated as an enemy combatant. But Graham’s conviction that the attack was part of a more systemic problem, based on Tsarnaev’s Muslim faith, was unmistakable. Tsarnaev’s attack killed three people and injured over 250.

Graham’s reaction to Wednesday’s attack on a black church in his home state of South Carolina was very different. (His niece, coincidentally, went to school with the shooter). Graham is adamant that the attack is not evidence of any larger problem (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/lindsey-graham-charleston-shooting/index.html).

Graham, who is on his way to Charleston, said his niece did not recall Roof making any statements that were related to race.

“I just think he was one of these whacked out kids. I don’t think it’s anything broader than that,” Graham said. “It’s about a young man who is obviously twisted.”


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671525/wildly-different-ways-one-senator-responds-terrorism-boston-versus-charleston/

A US citizen, but "ethnic", committing murderous terror for conspiratorial political reasons should be an enemy combatant, but a white boy committing murderous terror on blacks, following a centuries-long Confederate tradition, is just a whacked out, isolated, bad apple.

[boutons_deux]

iow, the Old SC Lesbian is saying "standing under the sacred Confederate flag, murdering blacks, it's who we are"

[Alex's foreskin]

I skipped over all his posts. But is Clipper Nation in here defending guns when he probably doesn't even know.how to use one?

[Clipper Nation]

I skipped over all his posts. But is Clipper Nation in here defending guns when he probably doesn't even know.how to use one?
Since when do you have to own a gun to defend a Constitutional right? It's amazing how literally every post you make is retarded.

[boutons_deux]

Since when do you have to own a gun to defend a Constitutional right? It's amazing how literally every post you make is retarded.

ha ha Constitutional perversion, smokescreen to enrich the gun industry. You have a Constitutional right to a gun if you are in a military militia to fight external threats (helping the early govt w/o a standing army).

btw, you don't have to own or know how to shoot a gun to BE A MAN! :lol

[Alex's foreskin]

Since when do you have to own a gun to defend a Constitutional right? It's amazing how literally every post you make is retarded.

Well I didn't say "own a gun". I said you didn't know how to use one, which you didn't address correctly so it is correctly assumed you have no goddamn idea how to use one.

[Clipper Nation]

Well I didn't say "own a gun". I said you didn't know how to use one, which you didn't address correctly so it is correctly assumed you have no goddamn idea how to use one.
So you have to know how to use a gun to defend a law-abiding citizen's right to use one? By that logic, you're not allowed to have basketball takes since you're not an NBA player.

[Alex's foreskin]

So you have to know how to use a gun to defend a law-abiding citizen's right to use one? By that logic, you're not allowed to have basketball takes since you're not an NBA player.

Well you like to shit on others for their position on tighter gun control, and by defending the use of guns, how does doing that help you if you don't know how to use one of you're in a situation where you need to use it? It gives you no credibility.

[Spurminator]

There's no Constitutional right to limitless gun privileges. Gun control <> banning guns. When you conflate the two you sound like an NRA mouthpiece.

[RD2191]

He was an evil kid who wanted to kill. One way or another he would of accomplished it. He could of just as easily set the church on fire or made a bomb and kill just as many people. Evil people are the problem not guns.

[Spurminator]

He could of just as easily set the church on fire or made a bomb and kill just as many people. Evil people are the problem not guns.

Building a bomb and setting a fire quickly enough to kill people inside are not as easy as shooting a gun.

[RD2191]

Building a bomb and setting a fire quickly enough to kill people inside are not as easy as shooting a gun.
Sure they are, if you know what you are doing. It may of taken him longer but if he was really set on killing which apparently he was he would of found another way to do it if he didn't have access to a gun.

[Winehole23]

Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.


For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

[Winehole23]

dp

[ChumpDumper]

Sure they are, if you know what you are doing. It may of taken him longer but if he was really set on killing which apparently he was he would of found another way to do it if he didn't have access to a gun.I think most of the victims would take the chance that he might figure something else out.

[boutons_deux]

Building a bomb and setting a fire quickly enough to kill people inside are not as easy as shooting a gun.

and explosives are tightly regulated.

[Blake]

He was an evil kid who wanted to kill. One way or another he would of accomplished it. He could of just as easily set the church on fire or made a bomb and kill just as many people. Evil people are the problem not guns.

Easily make a bomb

Easily set the church on fire

Rofl

[RD2191]

Easily make a bomb

Easily set the church on fire

Rofl
it aint that hard. you're an idiot if you believe otherwise.

[Blake]

Guns are designed to kill, not sure what Clipper Nation is trying to deflect to.

But don't you think everyone has a right to protect themselves? If we get rid of guns, what do you do when some gangbanger shows up at your doorstep and you don't have time to call the police?

I don't have a problem with people having guns to protect themselves at home.

[Spurminator]

Sure they are, if you know what you are doing. It may of taken him longer but if he was really set on killing which apparently he was he would of found another way to do it if he didn't have access to a gun.

Yes he might have, but those methods are not as easy as killing someone with a gun.

[Blake]

it aint that hard. you're an idiot if you believe otherwise.

guns are easier to get and use. Way easier.

[RD2191]

guns are easier to get and use. Way easier.
sure, but as I said, the dude was intent on killing, He would of done something one way or another.

[Blake]

sure, but as I said, the dude was intent on killing, He would of done something one way or another.

He didn't look bright up enough to make a bomb imo.

[Alex's foreskin]

Need strict psychological testing if someone wants to own a gun.

[Blake]

I wonder if rob really knows how top make a bomb

[boutons_deux]

also, why not let the black on black violence continue? without gun control, eventually the blacks will kill enough of the other blacks to put a serious dent in the murder rate, right?

I always thought that was the NRA/GOA strategy, let the blacks have plenty of guns so they can kill other blacks.

[boutons_deux]

He didn't look bright up enough to make a bomb imo.

I'm sure his white supremacist/militia buddies would say "You Can Do It, We Can Help"

[Alex's foreskin]

America has always had some form of gun control dating back to the constitution, btw. It just needs to be stricter now.

[pgardn]

I wonder if rob really knows how top make a bomb

I could teach him; he would probably screw it up and splode himself leading to the possible loss of his ability to post.

[Alex's foreskin]

I'm perfectly relaxed. I don't even own a gun myself, I just don't begrudge law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights.

So what are your thoughts on those same founding fathers banning blacks from owning guns? Or that those who didn't swear allegiance to the new government weren't allowed to own guns?

[m>s]

^they were right

[Alex's foreskin]

^they were right

So you can't be against gun control now.

[ChumpDumper]

^they were rightSo you swear allegiance to the federal government?

[Blake]

I'm sure his white supremacist/militia buddies would say "You Can Do It, We Can Help"

Eh easier to just get a gun

[Spurminator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=146&amp;v=lL8JEEt2RxI

“There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun. And this is the argument: ‘Fuck off. I like guns.'”

[m>s]

So you can't be against gun control now.
i'm for n!gger control

[boutons_deux]

[video=youtube;lL8JEEt2RxI]
“There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun. And this is the argument: ‘Fuck off. I like guns.'”

the height of gun fellators' nuanced approach to gun regs.

Will Jeffries feel the same if one of his little kids finds one of his "liked" loaded guns and kills somebody?

[m>s]

So you swear allegiance to the federal government?
the one that was founded in 1776 not the hijacked one

[Alex's foreskin]

the one that was founded in 1776 not the hijacked one
You mean the one that had gun control on whites too?

[Spurminator]

the height of gun fellators' nuanced approach to gun regs.

Will Jeffries feel the same if one of his little kids finds one of his "liked" loaded guns and kills somebody?

Maybe if you watched the video you'd know how he feels. You know you need a laugh in your life. Live a little, boots.

[TheSanityAnnex]

the height of gun fellators' nuanced approach to gun regs.

Will Jeffries feel the same if one of his little kids finds one of his "liked" loaded guns and kills somebody?
Odds of that happening?

[boutons_deux]

Huckabee: Confederate flag-waving South Carolina can’t be racist because it has an ‘Indian’ governorhttp://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/huckabee-confederate-flag-waving-south-carolina-cant-be-racist-because-it-has-an-indian-governor/

Do these pastors come to religion ignorant and stupid, or does religion make them ignorant and stupid.

LA is not racist either because it also has an Indian governor, fucking up LA.

[boutons_deux]

Ted Cruz Makes Gun Control Joke A Few Days After Charleston Shooting

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) cracked a couple gun rights jokes on the campaign trail last week, just a few days after the mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston that left nine dead.

"You know the great thing about the state of Iowa is, I'm pretty sure you all define gun control the same way we do in Texas -- hitting what you aim at," Cruz said at a town hall event in Iowa, according to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/20/ted-cruz-gun-control-charleston_n_7628960.html?utm_hp_ref=politics).

He told the audience in Red Oak, Iowa, that he recently went to a New Hampshire gun range that had "incredible full autos" along with his wife, Heidi.

"My wife, Heidi, who’s 5’2, blonde, a petite California blonde, she was standing at the tripod unloading the full machine gun with a pink baseball cap that said 'armed and fabulous,'" he said.

Following the event, Cruz criticized Democrats for tying the Charleston shooting to gun control reform when asked about the attack.

"It's sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as an excuse, not to go after people with serious mental illness or people who are repeat felons or criminals, but rather try to use it as an excuse to take away Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens," he said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-gun-control-joke?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[m>s]

But Cruz is Hispanic jewtouns, at least you can't call him a racist bubba haha

[unleashbaynes]

Lets outlaw cars while we are at it dipshit. They kill a lot more people every year than guns.

Cars actually contribute something to society you fucking mongoloid. That isn't the same thing at all. Pretty sad that i live in a society where i have more of a right to own a tool made specifically for killing than i do to have a fucking driver's license. Way to compare apples to oranges.

[unleashbaynes]

I swear I've never really bought into the JIDF/shilling stuff as much as some, but if there really is such a thing some of you posters have to be shills. There's no way you're this dense.

> it only takes one retard who can't handle LSD

Yeah it also takes one idiot who can't handle alcohol and jumps off a building. Why don't we ban that too? Why not cars while we're at it? After all, it only takes one idiot to go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people.

And

>that's why LSD is illegal

kek'd. Stay blue pill, anon. But then again this is probably JIDF anyway.

































pic related

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1386/92/1386927756413.jpg

shill? blue pill? kek'd? a dumbass comic strip? yeah, you're 12.

[Blake]

Armored tanks with turrets are designed to kill. Ban all civilians from driving vehicles!

or we could just ban civilians from driving armored tanks with turrets.

[m>s]

or we could just ban civilians from driving armored tanks with turrets.
The other kind kill even more people tbh

[Blake]

The other kind kill even more people tbh

that'll happen when there are a billion of the other kind.

[m>s]

Billions of guns too

[Blake]

Billions of cars = ok
Billions of guns = bad

Is this really that hard for you

[CosmicCowboy]

Billions of cars = ok
Billions of guns = bad

Is this really that hard for you

Transguide says 1333 people have been killed by cars so far this year in Texas alone. It's a pretty safe bet that at least 90% were caused by people using them dangerously.

[m>s]

Billions of cars = ok
Billions of guns = bad

Is this really that hard for you
says what/who?

[Blake]

Transguide says 1333 people have been killed by cars so far this year in Texas alone. It's a pretty safe bet that at least 90% were caused by people using them dangerously.

How many of the 1333 were killed on purpose

[Blake]

says what/who?

You know what, I'm actually ok with a billion guns if they're in the right hands.

I'm not ok with people getting access to guns that have no business having access.

[m>s]

Oh, that's a little bit different

[Blake]

Oh, that's a little bit different

As long as we've got it straight.

[m>s]

Just be more clear next time it's not a big deal

[boutons_deux]

For Bible humping gun fellators, he missed the chance to say "Gun-lyness is next to Godlyness." :lol

Steve King: Tighter Gun Laws Would Violate America's 'Higher Calling' -

King acknowledged that mass shootings are more frequent in the United States, but said that American has a “higher calling” than preventing “one event of violence” and can only be “the bastion of western civilization” if individual gun rights are unrestricted.

“Yes, we have a Second Amendment,” the Iowa Republican said. “And even if some of this violence could be stopped by confiscating all the guns, we have a charge, our charge is to defend freedom and liberty. We are the bastion of western civilization, and that requires us to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny.

That’s the charge that our founding fathers gave us, that’s in our culture, we know that, we’ve had to do that worldwide. So, it’s a much higher calling than believing that somehow we end one event of violence.” -

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/steve-king-tighter-gun-laws-would-violate-americas-higher-calling#sthash.eBguWXkx.dpuf

yes, Gun Death World Champion (industrial countries division), America's higher calling, showing the planet how to kill as many citizens as possible

Iowa! :lol keeps sending this asshole, he of "cantaloupe calves immigrants", to the Senate! :lol

[boutons_deux]

11 Myths About the Future of Gun Control, Debunked After the Charleston Shooting


Ather mass shooting, another round of arguments about why gun reform is doomed to fail. Turns out, most of those arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Myth #1: Gun control would never pass Congress.

A majority of US senators voted for a package of gun control measures only two years ago. The 54 who backed the bill, which was written by Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Manchin, included three other Republicans.

But when four Democrats got cold feet about their electoral chances in the midterms, the legislation fell short of the 60 votes it needed to prevent a filibuster.

Heading into the 2016 election, however, there are many more moderate Republican seats up for grabs – and a meaningful opportunity for Democrats to take back control of the Senate.

A successful bipartisan Senate bill and more persuasive president could be enough to encourage a future House speaker to allow a vote, too. It might even pass if the House remained in Republican control.

Myth #2: Americans don’t want meaningful gun reforms.

Support for universal background checks skyrocketed after the December 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, with 90% of Americans behind the proposal at its peak. More than two years later, polls continue to show strong support for expanding background checks, averaging 80%.

As a successful 2014 ballot initiative in Washington state proved, if you leave the decision in the hands of voters, they are more likely than politicians to vote for universal background checks.

Ironically, when Congress was weighing airstrikes in Syria in August 2013, just four months after the failed background checks vote, one of the foremost reasons lawmakers cited in opposing the Obama administration’s plan was polling that showed 90% of Americans were against intervention. It was a classic example of how Congress selectively listens to the American people – as in, whenever it’s more convenient.

Myth #3: Gun control won’t stop gun violence.

There are more than three times as many Americans killed by guns per capita than in any other wealthy nation, and more than ten times the rate in comparable larger countries such as Britain, France and Japan.

Many of these countries have similar problems with crime, drugs, urban deprivation and youth violence, others are more peaceful, but there is one simple thing that countries with less gun violence have in common with each other: they have fewer guns.

No one can predict the future of a more gun-constrained America with certainty, but the evidence from dozens of comparable societies (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list) [4]points to a clear causal relationship between access to firearms and how often they are used.

Myth #4: Switzerland and Israel seem to do OK without gun control

Proponents of unfettered gun ownership often point to the example of Switzerland, which has a tradition of more widespread firearms ownership than most other European countries but is not known for its gun-ravaged inner cities.

One problem is the trend is not that different: more guns still lead to more shooting, just less so than in America. Switzerland is actually second among wealthy nations in terms of annual gun deaths (0.77 per 100,000 of population in one recent survey (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list) [4], versus 2.97 in the US and just 0.07 in England and Wales) but has barely half as many guns per 100 people (45.7 versus 88.8 in the US).

But even this comparison gets weaker if you look at the way the Swiss keep their guns, which stems from a tradition of military service that has been considerably tightened over the years. One US study by the National Institutes of Health (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089893) [5]points out that both Switzerland and Israel (another alleged exception to the rule touted as proof that guns don’t kill) actually limit firearm ownership considerably and require permit renewal one to four times annually.

Those are just the kind of gun control measures, in fact, that second-amendment fans in the US claim wouldn’t make any difference to gun violence.

Myth #5: Other countries are different.

Further rejoinders to the international-comparison argument are less empirical still, tending to rely on a mixture of American cultural exceptionalism, pioneer spirit and a history of racial tension to explain why murder rates are so high without blaming gun ownership.

While it is true that US history differs greatly from European history, this theory is less effective at explaining similar disparities with Canada and Australia.

Comparisons between similar large cities also belie the argument that there is something uniquely violent about America’s urban poor. London has gang violence, drugs and recent riots that make Ferguson and Baltimore look tranquil, yet the Metropolitan police estimate criminals have access to barely 100 guns in a city only slightly smaller than New York. Cities like Glasgow and Liverpool can be shockingly violent places but victims of knife attacks and beatings tend to survive.

It may be true that the link between guns and a culture of violence goes both ways, but that’s hardly a reason not to try tackle both at the same time.

Myth #6: US borders are too open.

Amid widespread concern over illegal immigration, much attention has also focused on the unique geography of the United States. It is true that the country has among the longest land borders in the world and is a very open international trading nation.

It is hard to imagine, however, the weapons would be anywhere near as easy for criminals to obtain if they all had to be smuggled through ports, airports or across the Mexican border. Even a small reduction in weapons falling into the wrong hands would also reduce the incentive for homeowners to store guns for self-defense.

Whether US port security or land borders would really prove that much more porous than other countries with stricter gun laws is also open to question, but it is strange this argument is rarely offered as a reason to give up on drug interdiction, or intercepting terrorist bomb threats.

Myth #7: Guns are essential for self-defense.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun,” NRA president Wayne LaPierre infamously declared after the Newtown shooting.

According to the non-profit Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf) [6], there were just 258 “justifiable homicides” involving civilians using guns in 2012, as opposed to 8,342 criminal homicides committed with a firearm. “For every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides,” the group said in a report, which is based on data from the FBI and Bureau of Justice.

And those figures do not even include an estimated 22,000 suicides and accidental shootings annually where guns are involved.

Myth #8: The NRA is invincible.

Related: NRA blames Charleston victims as the mass shooting reaction echoes Newtown (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/nra-mass-shootings-south-carolina-church) [7]

After Newtown, anti-gun violence groups actually raised more money. According to filings with the Federal Election Commission (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/gun-control-groups-nra-cash-newtown-shootings) [8]in 2014, gun control groups declared $21.3m in contributions since the November 2012 election, whereas gun rights’ groups raised $16.3m in the same period.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, the anti-gun violence group co-founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, a Democrat who was shot in the head during the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, amassed a whopping $11 million in its first four months of existence.

Myth #9: Lawmakers will be voted out of office for supporting gun control.

In the 2014 elections, two governors who passed comprehensive gun control bills – Connecticut governor Dan Malloy and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper, both Democrats – were both re-elected despite the NRA’s best efforts to defeat them.

The gun control debate also had little effect on lawmakers who voted against stricter gun laws after Newtown. US senators Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska – two of just four Democrats who joined Republicans in blocking a Senate bill to expand background checks – both lost their re-elections anyway.

Despite its pledge to reward politicians who stood up for gun rights, the NRA did nothing to help either senator. Money and grassroots support is also now on offer from groups like those backed by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, that support gun control.

Myth #10: Mass shootings still happen in areas with strict gun laws, so gun control doesn’t work.

When a mass shooting occurred in Septemberg 2013 at the Navy Yard compound in Washington, one of the first arguments made by activists for gun rights was that gun control is clearly ineffective because DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the US.

A similar point has been made about Chicago, which has tough restrictions on guns but ranks among the country’s deadliest with respect to gun violence (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/chicago-baltimore-new-york-memorial-day-shootings) [9].

The problem with this theory is that criminals also have access to cars, and can easily obtain firearms in neighbouring states or counties.

In the Navy Yard incident, the shooter legally purchased firearms in neighboring Virginia despite a criminal record and mental health issues – exposing gaps in the current background checks system. And cities like Chicago are plagued by the illegal trafficking of firearms; there is no current federal law that defines gun trafficking or straw purchasing as a crime.

Myth #11: Universal background checks would create a federal database of gun owners.

One of the myths that ended the background checks bill in the Senate two years ago was the claim – perpetrated by the gun lobby and swallowed by most Republicans – was that it would create a national registry of gun owners. In fact, the Manchin-Toomey legislation explicitly barred the creation of a federal database in its text, but opponents insisted it would infringe on the liberties of gun owners in America.

Aside from that being a false claim, it was notable that just a couple of months later, when it was revealed that the NSA was spying on millions of Americans, the same lawmakers were overwhelmingly supportive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/nsa-senators_n_3428074.html) [10] of far more intrusive data-gathering.

http://www.alternet.org/print/11-myths-about-future-gun-control-debunked-after-charleston-shooting

[Blake]

Just be more clear next time it's not a big deal

well that's why i backtracked; to clear it up.

[DMX7]

You know what, I'm actually ok with a billion guns if they're in the right hands.

I'm not ok with people getting access to guns that have no business having access.


Oh, that's a little bit different

With a billion guns out there, they couldn't possibly get into the wrong hands.

[Blake]

With a billion guns out there, they couldn't possibly get into the wrong hands.

I'm not sure the number is relevant?

There's got to be a way to keep better tabs on the guns when they get sold or change hands, and hold the seller more accountable if illegally sold.

[CosmicCowboy]

You know what, I'm actually ok with a billion guns if they're in the right hands.

I'm not ok with people getting access to guns that have no business having access.

I'm not OK with people getting access to cars that have no business having access.

[DMX7]

What's the backstory on why this kid's parents bought him a gun in the first place? I'm too lazy to google for it.

[Blake]

I'm not OK with people getting access to cars that have no business having access.

Like who?

[Blake]

What's the backstory on why this kid's parents bought him a gun in the first place? I'm too lazy to google for it.

splits posted a link that says he actually went in to a store and bought it himself

[CosmicCowboy]

Like who?

Well you seemed to be hung up on intent to kill and not negligent killing. Dead is dead.

[DMX7]

Well you seemed to be hung up on intent to kill and not negligent killing. Dead is dead.

You're really reaching now...

[m>s]

With a billion guns out there, they couldn't possibly get into the wrong hands.
That settles it better start rounding them up right now. Who's going to go collect them first?

[boutons_deux]

"hold the seller more accountable if illegally sold."

any EFFECTIVE gun control, (getting the guns away from the bad guys and other suspects) has to be retroactive, no "grandfathering"

1. gotta have and show the bill of sale (which by BoS serial must match that the seller registered at time of sale)

2. gotta have and show liability insurance, PER GUN, and why not equal to $100K/$300K like cars? Homeowner/apartment contents policy won't cover.

3. if a gun carrier or owner can't show the above, then all the guns are confiscated and destroyed.

4. shooting ranges must demand all shooter show the above upon entry.

5. all guns have serial numbers, and registered in national database.

6. any gun w/o serial number is confiscated, destroyed, and the carrier arrested and fined on first offense, jailed on succeeding offenses.

7. Any gun used in a crime that was stolen from or lost by the certified owner makes the owner an accomplice to the crime.

8. stalkers, spousal abusers, patients under psychiatric care, alcoholics, DWI criminals, users of "crazy making" drugs like PCP, meth, all lose their right to buy and own guns.

etc, etc.

btw, the above pretty much parallels the same for buying, owning, operating a car.

Ya see, all y'all good guy gun fellators can have all the guns you want. It's the bad and suspect people ONLY who lose their right to guns.

[m>s]

Because it's not a slippery slope and we totally trust you asshole

[CosmicCowboy]

You're really reaching now...

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

[m>s]

Also requiring someone to pay for insurance to own a gun changes it from a right to a privilege and possibly bars those who need it most the right to have one. It's the people In poor areas who really need one. Boutons are you sure you're not a republican because your proposals favor the rich and give them more rights.

[Clipper Nation]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?
:cry "But, but, cars weren't designed to kill!" :cry

As if the design matters when both are often USED to kill.

[DMX7]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

I see a massive straw man.

[boutons_deux]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

bullshit, Ms of people, even Repugs, have been calling for stronger gun regulation for years, even decades.

and you push the "lone ranger", bad apple, mentally ill bullshit to justify keeping gun regs useless.

[Blake]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

Who here is saying to outlaw guns?

[Ignignokt]

Who here is saying to outlaw guns?

Quiet cucky, the cucktainer awaits.

[Blake]

Quiet cucky, the cucktainer awaits.

shit post

[Blake]

:cry "But, but, cars weren't designed to kill!" :cry

As if the design matters when both are often USED to kill.

Well then hunters should just use dem trucks to kill deer

[CosmicCowboy]

I see a massive straw man.

Nope. That was an analogy, not a straw man.

[DMX7]

Nope. That was an analogy, not a straw man.

An irrelevant one... because no one is saying we should outlaw guns.

[Ignignokt]

shit post

in response to shit people.

[Clipper Nation]

Well then hunters should just use dem trucks to kill deer


Quiet cucky, the cucktainer awaits.

[CosmicCowboy]

An irrelevant one... because no one is saying we should outlaw guns.

So what are you proposing?

[DMX7]

So what are you proposing?

I might not go as far as B_DX, but you could start there.

[boutons_deux]

Charleston Church Massacre Raises Profile Of White Nationalist Group — And Its GOP Connections

In his manifesto, Roof has written about being influenced (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dylann-roof-manifesto-20150620-story.html#page=1) by a white supremacist organization known as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). And on Sunday night, the CCC posted its own response regarding Roof’s “legitimate grievances.”

“The C of CC unequivocally condemns Roof’s murderous actions,” the group’s statement (http://www.donotlink.com/framed?729431) said.

“However, the council stands unshakably behind the facts on its website, and points out the dangers of denying the extent of black-on-white crime.”

The statement by group spokesman Jared Taylor also added (with all emphasis in the original):


Our society’s silence about these crimes—despite enormous amounts of attention to “racially tinged” acts by whites—only increase the anger of people like Dylann Roof. This double standard *only makes acts of murderous frustration more likely*.

In his manifesto, Roof outlines other grievances felt by many whites. Again, we utterly condemn Roof’s despicable killings, but they do not detract in the slightest from the legitimacy of some of the positions he has expressed. *Ignoring legitimate grievances is dangerous*.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/charleston-church-massacre-raises-profile-of-white-nationalist-group-and-its-gop-connections/

A large majority of (gun) crimes are black-on-black, and white-on-white.

But CCC doesn't think blacks bitching about being killed by blacks (or whites, esp policemen) and doesn't think whites bitching about being killed by white are "legitimates" bitchings. As a racist hater, he only whines about whites being killed by blacks.

[CosmicCowboy]

Interestingly enough, the majority of drivers in fatal accidents are males 25-65. Should we ban them from driving cars?

[boutons_deux]

Interestingly enough, the majority of drivers in fatal accidents are males 25-65. Should we ban them from driving cars?

cars are transportation tools, not killing tools, your NRA/GOA/gun-industry-lobbyist bullshit is risible.

cars are insured, cars are registered, licensed, stored in many different databases, drivers are licensed, infractions are knowable to the car insurance companies who raise your insurance for years, some infractions can cause loss of driving privileges, etc, etc. Somebody borrows your car from totally innocent, to commit a crime, you're an accomplice.

Apply all that car stuff, and more, to guns, and we got a deal. and all you wonderful, righteous Good Guys With Guns still could have all the guns you want.

[Clipper Nation]

cars are transportation tools, not killing tools, your NRA/GOA/gun-industry-lobbyist bullshit is risible.
Both kill people.


cars are insured, cars are registered, licensed, stored in many different databases, drivers are licensed, infractions are knowable to the car insurance companies who raise your insurance for years, some infractions can cause loss of driving privileges, etc, etc. Somebody borrows your car from totally innocent, to commit a crime, you're an accomplice.

Apply all that car stuff, and more, to guns, and we got a deal. and all you wonderful, righteous Good Guys With Guns still could have all the guns you want.
Guns are already more strictly regulated than cars.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/debunking-guns-treated-like-cars-analogy/p

[Th'Pusher]

Both kill people.


Guns are already more strictly regulated than cars.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/debunking-guns-treated-like-cars-analogy/p

Shit link to irrelevant article.

Btw- why won't you address the point about the founding fathers infringing on the right of pretty much any person they didn't want to own a gun? address that simple point constitution boy.

[Clipper Nation]

Shit link to irrelevant article.

Btw- why won't you address the point about the founding fathers infringing on the right of pretty much any person they didn't want to own a gun? address that simple point constitution boy.
Is the truth making you emotional, faggot?

The Founders were very clear that anyone who was capable should be able to own a gun. Now, back in 1787, society was a lot less enlightened, so African-Americans weren't considered "capable." Times have changed, but that doesn't change the principle that anyone who wishes to own a gun should be able to so long as they abide by the rule of law.

[boutons_deux]

Is the truth making you emotional, faggot?

The Founders were very clear that anyone who was capable should be able to own a gun. Now, back in 1787, society was a lot less enlightened, so African-Americans weren't considered "capable." Times have changed, but that doesn't change the principle that anyone who wishes to own a gun should be able to so long as they abide by the rule of law.

there were LOTS of places that restricted guns in the 19th century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

myth: Gun regulations are incompatible with America’s gun heritage.When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.

In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses.
(Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)

On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western townhad stricter gun laws (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020500207.html)than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.

5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/bg/mcveigh.htm) and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html


search "gun restrictions in the 19th century"

NRA used to be an honorable, harmless, even helpful org, then murderer Harlon Carter and his asshole posse pulled off a coup to change NRA direction into the silly, dangerous org it is today.

[Th'Pusher]

Is the truth making you emotional, faggot?

The Founders were very clear that anyone who was capable should be able to own a gun. Now, back in 1787, society was a lot less enlightened, so African-Americans weren't considered "capable." Times have changed, but that doesn't change the principle that anyone who wishes to own a gun should be able to so long as they abide by the rule of law.

I love the way that emotional comment is a thorn in your side. It really struck a chord with you.

Nevertheless, what about the white man who was prevented from owning a gun if he hadn't pledged allegiance to the rebellion?

edit: you can also address the specifics in BDs post above.

[Th'Pusher]

And constitution boy disappears...

Coming to to grips with the fact that the founding fathers supported gun control sent him into an emotional tailspin:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

What new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

[Clipper Nation]

Nevertheless, what about the white man who was prevented from owning a gun if he hadn't pledged allegiance to the rebellion?

It's intellectually dishonest to paint this as "gun control" when Loyalists also had their land seized, were often thrown in jail, publicly humiliated, tarred and feathered during the war and were deported to Canada after the war. This law had much more to do with punishing those who did not support the Revolution than any concerted effort to reduce gun ownership.

At one point, there was even a federal mandate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792) requiring every free able-bodied white male between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun, which was later expanded to able-bodied men of every race between the ages of 18 and 54 - pretty much the exact opposite of the type of gun law that emotional libtards like you would ever advocate for, since you're scared shitless of firearms. A government as concerned with curtailing the ownership of guns as you paint them to be certainly wouldn't be forcibly arming such a significant number of its constituents. Of course, you ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[Clipper Nation]

there were LOTS of places that restricted guns in the 19th century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

myth: Gun regulations are incompatible with America’s gun heritage.When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.

In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses.
(Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)

On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western townhad stricter gun laws (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020500207.html)than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.

5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/bg/mcveigh.htm) and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html


search "gun restrictions in the 19th century"

NRA used to be an honorable, harmless, even helpful org, then murderer Harlon Carter and his asshole posse pulled off a coup to change NRA direction into the silly, dangerous org it is today.

Myth 1: As long as we're reaching all the way back to colonial America, it's important to note that the Revolution really started when the British banned imports of firearms and gunpowder in 1774 and then began confiscating them the following year. Clearly the colonists were far more married to their gun rights than your cherry-picked portrayal would suggest, since they literally started a war about it.

Myth 2: The Founders specifically stated at the time that individual self-defense was just as important of a rationale for gun ownership as "watering the tree of liberty."

[Clipper Nation]

What new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

Speaking of disappearing, notice how the libtards disappear whenever you ask this question. Coming to grips with the fact that murderers won't follow any law they come up with must be sending them into an emotional tailspin.

[Aztecfan03]

An irrelevant one... because no one is saying we should outlaw guns.
tons of people say we should outlaw guns. most not in a position to do anything though.

[boutons_deux]

Speaking of disappearing, notice how the libtards disappear whenever you ask this question.

Where and how did the shooter obtain the gun?

[boutons_deux]

Charleston Church Massacre Raises Profile Of White Nationalist Group — And Its GOP Connections

How long will we let conservatives write off Republican racism as a coincidence?

The New York Times reported this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html) that Earl Holt—the leader of the white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, that apparently had so much influence over Dylann Roof—donated thousands of dollars to various Republican politicians.

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum all responded by trying to put some distance there, by either returning the money or giving it to charity (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-santorum-earl-holt-ccc).That’s all a good first step, but it’s also frustrating and telling that this is only being done after nine people lost their lives to a racist ideologue with a gun.

It’s not like no one knew before about the Council of Conservative Citizens and their deep and very often successful desire to get involved in Republican politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/22/the-odd-political-success-of-the-white-supremacist-council-of-conservative-citizens-explained/).

Trent Lott, who also had to apologize in 2002 for basically suggesting that this country would have been better off if we’d kept segregation (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/lott.controversy/), addressed the group at their 1998 convention (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/22/the-odd-political-success-of-the-white-supremacist-council-of-conservative-citizens-explained/).

But such as how it is when it comes to

racism and Republican politics: The benefit of the doubt will be endlessly extended, no matter how unwarranted and no matter how many times Republicans show they don’t deserve it.

These candidates will give the money back and that will be that, the end of the story. There won’t be any deeper discussion about why open and overt racists—ones that are defending Dylann Roof’s paranoid racist manifesto, by the way (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/council-conservative-citizens-dylann-roof)—just so happen to give money and lobbying attention to Republicans.

We will all be expected to act like that’s a remarkable coincidence and there’s nothing racist about conservatism per se and the only reason that overt racists feel at home with Republicans is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

That whole “it’s a remarkable coincidence!” bullshit is all over the debate over the Confederate flag that has cropped back up as everyone remembers that South Carolina hangs that flag and has all these laws against taking it down. We’re expected to pretend that it’s a coincidence that the same people who find that flag attractive also vote for policies that exacerbate racial disparities.

We’re supposed to ascribe the fact that the South rebelled and the fact that the South had legal slavery to being a remarkable coincidence, but daring suggest that the two had something to do with each other causes temper tantrums and meltdowns.

The Confederate flag actually receded from public view for decades after the war, but only returned as a symbol of the pro-segregation forces (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/why-is-the-flag-still-there/396431/) when desegregation efforts started up in earnest, but this, too, is supposed to be treated like a remarkable coincidence and not evidence that the flag is a racist symbol.

The flag that hangs over the South Carolina capitol was only put there in 1961. You could be honest and say that was in direct response to desegregation efforts, but obviously, conservatives would like you to believe, yet again, that this is a remarkable coincidence. Totally unrelated.

Well, I refuse.

There’s a reason overt racists are drawn to the Republican party, and that’s because they sense the covert racism of it. It’s not hard to see why: Republican policies are tailor made at exacerbating racial disparities, something I also refuse to see as a remarkable coincidence, but prefer instead to see as design.

Also not a coincidence is the fact that four out of five conservative justices on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of those who think Texas owes it to them to make Confederate flag license plates.

This is the conservative side of the bench, may I remind you. Conservative, authoritarian types should, by nature, be less supportive of free speech and more supportive of authority in disputes like this.

In fact, the conservatives on the court are generally that way, ruling against free speech in situations where someone speaks out in favor of marijuana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick).

Nor would you think it “conservative” to support the idea of treason or rebellion.

But if it’s all done in service of the message that black Americans are lesser than white Americans, by remarkable coincidence, the conservatives suddenly become free speech absolutists.

It’s too many remarkable coincidences. I do think we have a fucking pattern. And giving a little money back isn’t going to change that.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/how-long-will-we-let-conservatives-write-off-republican-racism-as-a-coincidence/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Th'Pusher]

It's intellectually dishonest to paint this as "gun control" when Loyalists also had their land seized, were often thrown in jail, publicly humiliated, tarred and feathered during the war and were deported to Canada after the war. This law had much more to do with punishing those who did not support the Revolution than any concerted effort to reduce gun ownership.

At one point, there was even a federal mandate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792) requiring every free able-bodied white male between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun, which was later expanded to able-bodied men of every race between the ages of 18 and 54 - pretty much the exact opposite of the type of gun law that emotional libtards like you would ever advocate for, since you're scared shitless of firearms. A government as concerned with curtailing the ownership of guns as you paint them to be certainly wouldn't be forcibly arming such a significant number of its constituents. Of course, you ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative.
no. What is intellectually dishonest is conflating the "need" for the Militia Acts of 1792, when America did not have a standing army with the "need" to own as many and any types of fucking guns as I want because it's my constitional right as a mother fuckin American. :cryBaldeagle

I do like the way you've cribbed my emotional shtick. That one really hit home :lol

[Th'Pusher]

What new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?
Strict enforcement of penalty on people who sell any guns that are used to commit any sort of crime might help deter some of this. Of course a lot would need to go into place to make that work...none of which is politically feasible.

[lefty]

Transguide says 1333 people have been killed by cars so far this year in Texas alone. It's a pretty safe bet that at least 90% were caused by people using them dangerously.
Yes it's a good idea to compare car accidents and degenerates who deliberately open fire on people.

Brilliant

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes it's a good idea to compare car accidents and degenerates who deliberately open fire on people.

Brilliant

Is a drunk that kills someone with a car any less culpable than a drunk that kills someone with a gun?

[unleashbaynes]

Is a drunk that kills someone with a car any less culpable than a drunk that kills someone with a gun?

drunks that kill people with a car are sent to jail and never allowed to drive again. a person getting drunk and getting into an accident isn't in any way comparable to somebody opening fire onto a crowd of people. that is an asinine comparison considering how many people NEED a car to get to work because they live in an area with no mass transportation available. quit being intellectually dishonest.

[boutons_deux]

equating auto deaths with gun deaths, and car regulation with gun regulation, are undeniable symptoms of gun fellatin derangement syndrome. Prognosis is negative.

[m>s]

drunks that kill people with a car are sent to jail and never allowed to drive again. a person getting drunk and getting into an accident isn't in any way comparable to somebody opening fire onto a crowd of people. that is an asinine comparison considering how many people NEED a car to get to work because they live in an area with no mass transportation available. quit being intellectually dishonest.
People who shoot people with a gun are also sent to jail

[ChumpDumper]

Is a drunk that kills someone with a car any less culpable than a drunk that kills someone with a gun?If you show me a drunk driver who got the death penalty and was executed in the states for drunk driving, I will buy your argument.

[boutons_deux]

Miss. police: Open carry laws kept us from arresting shotgun-toting man who terrorized Walmart shoppers

The police chief of Gulfport, Mississippi, expressed his frustration with his state’s open carry laws after a man strolling through a Walmart Sunday night menaced shoppers by loading and racking shells into his shotgun, causing police to dispatch a SWAT team and evacuate the store.According to Police Chief Leonard Papania, he would have arrested the unidentified man and his companion if he could for stretching the city’s police forces thin while panicked Walmart employees huddled in a safe room, WMC (http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/29379669/papania-open-carry-situation-could-have-turned-into-violent-misunderstanding) reported.

“If I were in a situation where I’m in the store shopping with my family and I see an individual loading a 12 gauge, and racking it, I’m not coming to the conclusion this is good,” said Papania. “While the actions of these two men are sanctioned by state laws, what they did negatively impacted our community.”

According to police they received multiple calls about the men who had possibly done the same thing at a local Winn-Dixie, forcing police to divert officers to the Walmart to form a perimeter as the SWAT entered and searched the store. By the time police had arrived, the two men had left.

Using surveillance video police were able to track the men down and speak with them, but due to Mississippi’s open carry laws, the chief said his hands were tied after conferring with city attorneys.

“In our nation there continues to be violent events. Many of these tragic events start to unfold with very similar circumstances where individuals exhibit peculiar actions with firearms around large crowds,” he explained. “The actions of these two men could have inadvertently led to a very violent misunderstanding.”

Without mentioning it, the police chief may have been alluding to the shooting of John Crawford in an Ohio Walmart last August (http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/cops-gun-down-ohio-man-holding-toy-rifle-in-walmart-like-he-was-not-even-human/), after police gunned the African-American man down while he held a toy rifle.

Asked whether he believed police overreacted to the situation, the police chief said absolutely not.

“You don’t have to look hard in today’s media and see demonstrations of very violent acts. And if I had been in the store last night watching someone load a shotgun and rack it — that’s not normal. And that’s usually precipitates a violent act.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/miss-police-open-carry-laws-kept-us-from-arresting-shotgun-toting-man-who-terrorized-walmart-shoppers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Thanks, NRA/GOA/gun-industry and their Repug whores !

note that the black guy was shot dead IMMEDIATELY, but the white redneck gun fellators all walked away to terrorize another day.

[The Reckoning]

kkk busts being removed. confederate flag blasted to the past.


blacks are finally free!!! hallelujah!

[m>s]

Come and take them right guy, you rabid communist dog

[boutons_deux]

There's a petition for BMW and Adidas, lured to SC by tax breaks and "right to work for less" laws, to take a position against the stars n bars.

[vy65]

Also requiring someone to pay for insurance to own a gun changes it from a right to a privilege and possibly bars those who need it most the right to have one. It's the people In poor areas who really need one. Boutons are you sure you're not a republican because your proposals favor the rich and give them more rights.

And also, no insurance would provide coverage for willful misconduct, gross negligence, or intentional acts. So coverage would be limited to those injuries (and whatever de minimus property damage) caused by a truly negligent act. How many times has someone, who has no health insurance, been injured by a truly negligent operation of a firearm?

[vy65]

Short of a complete ban on firearms, it's hard to see how more stringent restrictions would do anything to stop incidents like this. If anything, stronger restrictions incentivize a stronger black market for guns.

[boutons_deux]

Short of a complete ban on firearms, it's hard to see how more stringent restrictions would do anything to stop incidents like this. If anything, stronger restrictions incentivize a stronger black market for guns.

maybe we'll learn eventually how and where this mass murderer obtained his gun(s).

[CosmicCowboy]

If you show me a drunk driver who got the death penalty and was executed in the states for drunk driving, I will buy your argument.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for reinforcing my point.Actually it refutes your point.

[DMX7]

maybe we'll learn eventually how and where this mass murderer obtained his gun(s).

His parents

[m>s]

Have you guys who are genuinely scared of getting killed in a mass shooting considered other countries that have laws similar to what you want?

[boutons_deux]

His parents

if they were black, the white cops would arrest them as accomplices.

[DMX7]

Have you guys who are genuinely scared of getting killed in a mass shooting considered other countries that have laws similar to what you want?

Are other countries with tight gun control laws just as bad as the US when it come to these types of shootings?

[m>s]

Are other countries with tight gun control laws just as bad as the US when it come to these types of shootings?
I mean it's like me moving to Saudi Arabia and expecting everyone to become Christian and change their constitution to one like ours and demanding equal rights for women. This country was built on God and guns and the constitution and you people are trying to change our national identity. You guys advocate open borders and free movement of people do why not just move to Sweden? Sounds like a win win.

[DMX7]

I mean it's like me moving to Saudi Arabia and expecting everyone to become Christian and change their constitution to one like ours and demanding equal rights for women. This country was built on God and guns and the constitution and you people are trying to change our national identity. You guys advocate open borders and free movement of people do why not just move to Sweden? Sounds like a win win.

uh oh... you really tee'd one up for B_DX.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually it refutes your point.

Nope. Dead is Dead. You guys get your panties all in a wad about a few gun deaths and "ho hum" about vehicle deaths. It IS a valid analogy.

[m>s]

uh oh... you really tee'd one up for B_DX.
That guy has never had anything to say worth listening to

[DMX7]

Nope. Dead is Dead. You guys get your panties all in a wad about a few gun deaths and "ho hum" about vehicle deaths. It IS a valid analogy.

There would be a lot more motor vehicle deaths if it weren't for common sense laws that save lives. For example, there would probably be a lot more drunk driving fatalities if it weren't against the law to drink and drive. There would probably me a lot more fatalities due to accidents if the law didn't require auto-makers to install seat belts and for drivers/passengers to where them. If you can pass simple common sense laws to curb injuries/deaths from firearms, then you probably should. No one is saying we outlaw guns.

[CosmicCowboy]

Whats wrong with Sweden?

http://mlblogsredstatebluestate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/swedish_bikini_team-thumb-400x300-2450341.jpg?w=400&h=300

[DMX7]

Whats wrong with Sweden?

http://mlblogsredstatebluestate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/swedish_bikini_team-thumb-400x300-2450341.jpg?w=400&h=300

You joke; and I love the US for many reasons including the fact that it's my home, but certain parts of Europe are starting to sound better and better these days. Not that I'm really concerned about being the victim of a killing spree (but then how many people who are killed really are anyway?).

[Blake]

What new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

Deja vu

Why have criminal laws at all?

[cantthinkofanything]

Deja vu

Why have criminal laws at all?

that's microagressive

KORI!!!!!!

[m>s]

Deja vu

Why have criminal laws at all?
>implying gun owners are criminals

i am SO triggered right now

[Blake]

>implying gun owners are criminals

i am SO triggered right now

I didn't imply that at all.

You're dumb. Someone should take the gun from your hand.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Whats wrong with Sweden?

http://mlblogsredstatebluestate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/swedish_bikini_team-thumb-400x300-2450341.jpg?w=400&h=300

How much time you got brother? Imagine a country made up of only people from San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. Imagine a country where Blake would call the men there a bunch of cucks.

Just google "Sweden yes"

[boutons_deux]

Vast majorities still support universal background checks (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395812/-PPP-Poll-Vast-majorities-still-support-universal-background-checks)


http://images.dailykos.com/images/149989/large/Screen_Shot_2015-06-23_at_9.29.39_AM.png?1435077039

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395812/-PPP-Poll-Vast-majorities-still-support-universal-background-checks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

[m>s]

I didn't imply that at all.

You're dumb. Someone should take the gun from your hand.
Check your cuck privilege shitlord

[m>s]

Whats wrong with Sweden?

http://mlblogsredstatebluestate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/swedish_bikini_team-thumb-400x300-2450341.jpg?w=400&h=300
Ah, women from the old Sweden. Now days they all wear burkas

[Blake]

Check your cuck privilege shitlord

Dumb post

[m>s]

Check your smart privilege too

[TheSanityAnnex]

Strict enforcement of penalty on people who sell any guns that are used to commit any sort of crime might help deter some of this. Of course a lot would need to go into place to make that work...none of which is politically feasible.

If he bought it from a gun store in SC he had to pass a background check, how would the dealer be responsible after that? If the NICS failed do we hold the FBI responsible?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Deja vu

Why have criminal laws at all?

Again, what new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Vast majorities still support universal background checks (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395812/-PPP-Poll-Vast-majorities-still-support-universal-background-checks)


http://images.dailykos.com/images/149989/large/Screen_Shot_2015-06-23_at_9.29.39_AM.png?1435077039

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395812/-PPP-Poll-Vast-majorities-still-support-universal-background-checks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

If he bought it from a gun store as is now being reported he went through a background check so........

[Blake]

Check your smart privilege too

I earned it. You can too but refuse for some dumb reason.

[Blake]

Again, what new law would have stopped this guy from obtaining a firearm?

probably none. There are people out there like this guy that won't be deterred by any law or punishment.

But like I said the last time you asked this on the first few pages of this thread: I'm for stricter background checks/regulations.

[Blake]

If he bought it from a gun store as is now being reported he went through a background check so........

Dude had a pending felony case, didn't he?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. Dead is Dead. You guys get your panties all in a wad about a few gun deaths and "ho hum" about vehicle deaths. It IS a valid analogy.Nope. They are not treated equally under the law, so the culpability is not the same.

If more people ran down folks Death Race 2000 style and there was really no other use for them you might have a point.

[Th'Pusher]

Dude had a pending felony case, didn't he?
He did. So, if he bought it from a gun store, then they either didn't perform a background check or sold it to him knowing he has a pending felony.

[TheSanityAnnex]

He did. So, if he bought it from a gun store, then they either didn't perform a background check or sold it to him knowing he has a pending felony.
Or the background check failed to show his pending felony. All of this will come out, really curious to see where the fuckup happened.

[Splits]

Strict enforcement of penalty on people who sell any guns that are used to commit any sort of crime might help deter some of this. Of course a lot would need to go into place to make that work...none of which is politically feasible.


maybe we'll learn eventually how and where this mass murderer obtained his gun(s).


Charleston Church Gunman Dylann Roof Bought Pistol Locally: Officials

by MARK POTTER and PETE WILLIAMS


Dylann Roof bought the semiautomatic handgun he used in last week's church shooting (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting) at a gun store 25 miles from his home, according to officials familiar with the sale.
Law enforcement officials say the transaction was entirely legal, despite a pending drug charge.

The officials say Roof bought a 45-caliber Glock handgun on April 11, eight days after he turned 21, at Shooter's Choice in West Columbia, South Carolina.
"We do not give out customer information," said a man who identified himself as the gun store manager but declined to reveal his name.

Roof's friends (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/charleston-church-shooter-hinted-attack-friend-says-n378916) have told NBC News he used money given to him by his parents as a birthday present.

Roof had been arrested in late February at a Columbia shopping mall (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/dylann-roof-suspected-charleston-church-shooting-gunman-has-troubled-past-n377686) and charged with possessing Suboxone, a controlled substance commonly used to treat heroin addiction. He was indicted by a Lexington County grand jury on a state drug charge, a case that is currently pending.

Federal law prohibits the sale of a gun to anyone who is "under indictment for" a felony, but the drug charge Roof faces is a misdemeanor under South Carolina law. For that reason, according to several current and former law enforcement officials, the pending charge did not disqualify Roof from buying a gun.

A separate provision of federal law prohibits the sale of a gun to anyone who is "an unlawful user" of any controlled substance. A provision of the Code of Federal Regulations, which defines that term in the gun law, says habitual use can be inferred from evidence of recent use, examples of which, it says, include "a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year," or "multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years."

Current and former ATF officials say a single misdemeanor arrest for possession of a controlled substance would not be disqualifying. The federal courts, these officials say, have tended to be strict in interpreting "unlawful user," and as a consequence, this provision is not often enforced.

For all these reasons, law enforcement officials say, the sale of the gun to Dylann Roof was legal.

[Th'Pusher]

^interesting. I'd read the drug charge was a felony.

[Splits]

Or the background check failed to show his pending felony. All of this will come out, really curious to see where the fuckup happened.

Or the "background check" is a meaningless process which does not involve digging into the actual background that would reveal a potential mass murderer. See my previous post. The issue is not someone failing to put him through a "background check". The issue is that a "background check" is useless if they're not "checking" for potential mass murderers. Dude had a Facebook page and friends who he got drunk with and espoused "race war" goals. But the "background check" is to put a name into a computer system and a yes/no outcome based on previous crimes. It should be much more rigorous, yet the NRA fights that every step of the way.

[TheSanityAnnex]

^interesting. I'd read the drug charge was a felony.
Same.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Or the "background check" is a meaningless process which does not involve digging into the actual background that would reveal a potential mass murderer. See my previous post. The issue is not someone failing to put him through a "background check". The issue is that a "background check" is useless if they're not "checking" for potential mass murderers. Dude had a Facebook page and friends who he got drunk with and espoused "race war" goals. But the "background check" is to put a name into a computer system and a yes/no outcome based on previous crimes. It should be much more rigorous, yet the NRA fights that every step of the way.
:lol Minority Report background check machine.

[Splits]

:lol Minority Report background check machine.

Yeah. When it comes to death machines, the default action shouldn't be "yes". It should be "no unless proven otherwise". Else, we have mass shootings.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yeah. When it comes to death machines, the default action shouldn't be "yes". It should be "no unless proven otherwise". Else, we have mass shootings.
:lol please explain how this new background check system will be able to identify and accurately predict mass murderers :lol

[Splits]

:lol please explain how this new background check system will be able to identify and accurately predict mass murderers :lol

Umm, you know, actually run a background check? See if the buyer has malicious intentions? Talk to his/her friends and family? See if they're looking to do mass murder?

A dude who espouses wanting to create a "race war" should be denied. Would you want to live in a neighborhood with m>s armed to the teeth? I know for sure I wouldn't.

[CosmicCowboy]

Umm, you know, actually run a background check? See if the buyer has malicious intentions? Talk to his/her friends and family? See if they're looking to do mass murder?

A dude who espouses wanting to create a "race war" should be denied. Would you want to live in a neighborhood with m>s armed to the teeth? I know for sure I wouldn't.

People who drink alcohol, do drugs, or like to drive fast or too slow should be excluded from getting drivers licenses too. Don't forget the ones who are taking prescription mood altering drugs. Big Brother should take care of us!

[Splits]

People who drink alcohol, do drugs, or like to drive fast or too slow should be excluded from getting drivers licenses too. Don't forget the ones who are taking prescription mood altering drugs. Big Brother should take care of us!

What does any of that have to do with the price of tea?

Are you pro-mass-murder?

[CosmicCowboy]

What does any of that have to do with the price of tea?

Are you pro-mass-murder?

No.

We have plenty of murder laws and consequences on the books already. Dead is dead whether it's from a gun, knife, ball pen hammer, fists, or a car.

should we have background checks before I can buy a ball peen hammer?

I guarantee you when I was in my prime I could have killed 9 church goers with a ball pen hammer if I had been so inclined.

[m>s]

Umm, you know, actually run a background check? See if the buyer has malicious intentions? Talk to his/her friends and family? See if they're looking to do mass murder?

A dude who espouses wanting to create a "race war" should be denied. Would you want to live in a neighborhood with m>s (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=27774) armed to the teeth? I know for sure I wouldn't.

Fuck off cuck, good ghing it's my right to live where I want and exercise all of my rights freely

[Splits]

No.

We have plenty of murder laws and consequences on the books already. Dead is dead whether it's from a gun, knife, ball pen hammer, fists, or a car.

should we have background checks before I can buy a ball peen hammer?

I guarantee you when I was in my prime I could have killed 9 church goers with a ball pen hammer if I had been so inclined.

Yeah, pretty sure dude couldn't have killed 9 people with a knife or a hammer without being ambushed. Guns are designed to kill, and kill quickly. A knife or hammer is much dirtier and the killer would certainly lose interest or become disgusted if it wasn't so easy to just pull a trigger.

You're a huge faggot. Look out on July 3, you're going to be gone. Certainly.

[Splits]

Fuck off cuck, good ghing it's my right to live where I want and exercise all of my rights freely

How's that race war going, faggot? Mark July 3 on your calendar. You're done.

[Clipper Nation]

Yeah, pretty sure dude couldn't have killed 9 people with a knife or a hammer without being ambushed. Guns are designed to kill, and kill quickly. A knife or hammer is much dirtier and the killer would certainly lose interest or become disgusted if it wasn't so easy to just pull a trigger.

You're a huge faggot. Look out on July 3, you're going to be gone. Certainly.
29 people got stabbed to death in an attack in China last year:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Also in China, back in 2010, five school kids got severely injured by a man weilding a hammer, following a string of mass stabbings in schools:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/world/5-chinese-students-hurt-in-hammer-attack-1.934504

July 3rd will be the death of this site if a cuck like you is being put in charge of it. Out with free speech, in with safe spaces and trigger warnings for SJWs like yourself.

[m>s]

How's that race war going, faggot? Mark July 3 on your calendar. You're done.
What happens then, some cuck law supposed to pass? I haven't been following the traitors recently

[m>s]

Ohh he's saying he's gonna buy the site and ban me. Good fuck this place.

[Blake]

29 people got stabbed to death in an attack in China last year:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367


Serious question, if that guy had a semi automatic, how many more people could he have hypothetically killed?

[Blake]

Ohh he's saying he's gonna buy the site and ban me. Good fuck this place.

you won't leave