• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224:1119]

Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Lefist terror groups such as the Black Panthers and SLA were willing to harm people.

The main difference is that leftist economics is a fundamentally flawed system. As a result, there is very little interest in leftist economic systems and the hard core leftist extremists cannot replace themselves. Most are now 60 plus years old and there are very few new Black Panthers and SLA types willing to continue the "struggle".

Meanwhile, right wing economics is not a failed system and there are many people interested in right wing economic theories. a small number turn to extremist groups. Right wing extremists can replace themselves- but only to degree (once there were tens of thousands of hard core KKK types. Today, there are probably only several hundred truly committed members). Thus, as there are more right wing terrorists out there, there is more right wing violence against individuals.

You had to go back 40 or 50 years to find one or two? Were you even alive then?

The CNN article said there were 34 killings by right wing extremists since 9/11 and zero by left wing extremists.....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hurch-shooting-w-224-a-55.html#post1064732556
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You had to go back 40 or 50 years to find one or two? Were you even alive then?

The CNN article said there were 34 killings by right wing extremists since 9/11 and zero by left wing extremists.....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hurch-shooting-w-224-a-55.html#post1064732556

Slate counts 60 since 1995.

Not including, of course, the 168 killed by McVeigh.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ers_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

For example, say that the measure we're considering is a regulation requiring gun owners to keep their guns locked up when they're not home. Would that stop all gun murders? Of course not. Some murders are committed by the gun owner, so locking it up when they're not around would be irrelevant. Some people would ignore the law and leave their guns unlocked. Some shooters who would otherwise have taken an unlocked gun will find a gun elsewhere. But, it is equally impossible that it would not reduce the incidence at all. Some people would lock up their guns, which would mean that some shooters wouldn't be able to get those guns, and some of those potential shooters would be unable to find a different gun at least until they cooled down. The answer to the question of how effective that measure would be can't possibly be either 0% or 100%, so answers in the binary form you're giving can't possibly be correct.

this one sentence here shows you're not talking something you know of.

shooters like this do not "snap" and go kill someone spur of the moment, hell being accepted and allowed to pray with the victims for an hour didn't cool him down, you'd think a rational person would come in, be accepted in the prayer circle and go "hey you know those stormfront guys are full of it, these people are ok" but that's not what happened.

you cannot "cool down" a person like this, except by getting them into professional help. preferable inpatient.

gun laws are a dead end, why? because nearly all of these mass shooters have the same profile, and yes Europe has strong gun laws, they also have universal health care and these people get treated before they kill somebody. every one of these mass shooters was on someones radar as being a nutburger, and parents, relatives, authorities, etc didn't take the signs seriously.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

All I am asking is the questions so the subject can be discussed.

I would say that when a person kills nine persons and makes statements like those attributed to the alleged killer - those are strong warning signs pointing to political grievances as at least part of the motivation.

Only in the minds of liberals with a need to attack conservatives are the actions and statements of the alleged killer here fantasized as political. We could just as easily discuss the possibility that young men who have their hair cut using cereal bowls as a guide are prone to mass murder.

His comments, in my view, were those of a white supremacist who seemed to have grievances against black people, grievances personal to him. Where's the political agenda that he was advancing in what he did and what is known at this time?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

We already have effective gun control. What Democrats want is draconian gun control. Banning "that thing that goes up"? What the hell will that do? Little scumbag reloaded 5 damn times....what would the stupid mag capacity limits have done there? NOTHING! The FBI failed to name a SINGLE gun law that had a discernible effect on lowering crime. NOT ONE. So what makes you think that MORE laws would even do anything, except annoy the law abiding?

Arresting criminals and then the criminal justice system locking them away for a couple decades or longer is the best gun control. Not some stupid law that sounds good but doesnt work.

You can't call it "effective gun control" when there's more guns than people. You can't call it "effective gun control" when the most common reaction to "only" one or two people getting shot on the street is a yawn.

As I stated in my post, there is NO instance where effective gun control in a democracy brought about tyranny, and there is NO instance where lack of gun control brought about that "polite society". Such things are only in your fantasies, because in REAL LIFE, effective gun control brings about MORE peaceful societies, where people don't have to be afraid to walk down the street at night. In REAL LIFE, a glaring lack of gun control results in more violent societies - always has, alway will.

So you have a choice - you can choose to believe the fantasies fed you by the right-wing echo chamber...or you can choose to believe what has actually happened in democracies with effective gun control and in nations without effective gun control.

Try basing your beliefs on real-world data - with a realization that people are people are people all over the world - and you'll find something completely different than what the gun-manufacturing-industry spokespeople at the NRA would have you believe.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Taking all the guns away from law abiding mentally stable and legal gun owners isn't going to address this particular problem.

If you really want to address the problem of the crazed mentally unstable using guns to randomly kill people, keep guns out of their reach. That would be far more effective at dealing with the root causes of this particular problem.

Surely you can see the logic and common sense of this.

If you've ever really paid attention, you'd already know that MOST liberals (including me) do not support total gun bans. MOST liberals do not support taking guns away from "law-abiding mentally-stable, legal gun owners". What we liberals DO support is full gun registration (to minimize gun smuggling and trafficking), outlawing of extended magazines (if that idiot in SC had not had to change mags 5 times, how many more would have died?), mandatory firearm safety training (because we get tired of reading about this and that stupid idiot who killed himself or his wife while cleaning his gun), continued outlawing of automatic weapons, and outlawing of military-grade sniper rifles (because there's absolutely no need for either of those among the civilian populace).

Personally, I strongly support smart gun tech - and yes, it would work just as well as my fingerprint sensor on my iPhone works, and it would prevent a heck of a lot of kids from killing themselves or their siblings because they found a gun.

One more thing - if you were to describe exactly what is entailed in the gun-control laws enforced in Israel and Switzerland, you'd find that most liberals would support those laws...and you might find that a heck of a lot of American "gun-rights supporters" would start calling those nations tyrannies.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Yep, Gun Control has worked wonders in places like Baltimore, Detroit, Washington DC , St Louis and Chicago... .

Obviously, you didn't read my post...because included therein was this:

"And one cannot point to, say, those American cities which have strong gun control laws on the books, because those laws are not enforceable - all one need do is to bring a car full of guns legally bought the next state over."

Next time, try READING a post before you metaphorically step in it, willya?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Obviously, you didn't read my post...because included therein was this:

"And one cannot point to, say, those American cities which have strong gun control laws on the books, because those laws are not enforceable - all one need do is to bring a car full of guns legally bought the next state over."

Next time, try READING a post before you metaphorically step in it, willya?

Well those cities can repeal those laws and make something more enforceable, that's always an option
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Only in the minds of liberals with a need to attack conservatives are the actions and statements of the alleged killer here fantasized as political. We could just as easily discuss the possibility that young men who have their hair cut using cereal bowls as a guide are prone to mass murder.

His comments, in my view, were those of a white supremacist who seemed to have grievances against black people, grievances personal to him. Where's the political agenda that he was advancing in what he did and what is known at this time?

I think what you might be missing is the fact that racism and political beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Try living down in the Deep South sometime and you'll see what we mean. Or you could just re-read about the opposition against the Civil Rights Act in general and segregation in particular in the Deep South.

What I'm getting at is that it's very, very difficult for someone who hasn't lived there to really understand just how deeply the racism is ingrained in Southern society...where among most whites there, racism is understood and tolerated...and IMO among most whites there aged 40 and over, accepted and even expected...

...and this does play very much into their politics.

That's just the way it is in the Deep South.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Well those cities can repeal those laws and make something more enforceable, that's always an option

Impossible. Re-read what I said, that all one has to do is to drive a car full of firearms legally bought across the state line. The fact that this is so easily and legally done makes any such gun control laws unenforceable for all practical purposes.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

If you've ever really paid attention, you'd already know that MOST liberals (including me) do not support total gun bans. MOST liberals do not support taking guns away from "law-abiding mentally-stable, legal gun owners". What we liberals DO support is full gun registration (to minimize gun smuggling and trafficking), outlawing of extended magazines (if that idiot in SC had not had to change mags 5 times, how many more would have died?), mandatory firearm safety training (because we get tired of reading about this and that stupid idiot who killed himself or his wife while cleaning his gun), continued outlawing of automatic weapons, and outlawing of military-grade sniper rifles (because there's absolutely no need for either of those among the civilian populace).

Personally, I strongly support smart gun tech - and yes, it would work just as well as my fingerprint sensor on my iPhone works, and it would prevent a heck of a lot of kids from killing themselves or their siblings because they found a gun.

One more thing - if you were to describe exactly what is entailed in the gun-control laws enforced in Israel and Switzerland, you'd find that most liberals would support those laws...and you might find that a heck of a lot of American "gun-rights supporters" would start calling those nations tyrannies.

So your platform if I translate this to normal English fom the BS you just posted

1) violate persons fourth amendment right to privacy
2) ban standard magazines (hehe nice double talk for finding a way to justify banning standard magazines from an incident where someone used a gun with a smaller standard magazine.
3) continue a ban that has no public safety justification
4) ban regular rifles with no practical criminal application
5) cite gun control examples in countries that allow virtually all of what you just advocate banning
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Impossible. Re-read what I said, that all one has to do is to drive a car full of firearms legally bought across the state line. The fact that this is so easily and legally done makes any such gun control laws unenforceable for all practical purposes.

It is not legal to cross a stateline with guns illegal in another state unless you're transiting through
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I think what you might be missing is the fact that racism and political beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Try living down in the Deep South sometime and you'll see what we mean. Or you could just re-read about the opposition against the Civil Rights Act in general and segregation in particular in the Deep South.

What I'm getting at is that it's very, very difficult for someone who hasn't lived there to really understand just how deeply the racism is ingrained in Southern society...where among most whites there, racism is understood and tolerated...and IMO among most whites there aged 40 and over, accepted and even expected...

...and this does play very much into their politics.

That's just the way it is in the Deep South.

We can boil it down simpler, you as a anti rights advocate (becuase there's nothing liberal about demanding the state violate peoples civil rights) do not believe in a total ban, just a regulatory framework so expensive and complicated for so little benefit that no one bothers to do it. Got it
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

So your platform if I translate this to normal English fom the BS you just posted

1) violate persons fourth amendment right to privacy

Um, no, required firearm registration does not violate the fourth amendment any more than require vehicle registration.

2) ban standard magazines (hehe nice double talk for finding a way to justify banning standard magazines from an incident where someone used a gun with a smaller standard magazine.

I said, ban EXTENDED magazines, not standard mags, guy. Please don't try to twist my words. If the idiot in SC hadn't had to change clips five times, how many more would have died?

3) continue a ban that has no public safety justification

Are you referring to my support of mandatory firearm safety training? And you're seriously claiming this has no public safety justification? Dude...you really should read the news sometime.

4) ban regular rifles with no practical criminal application

Did I say REGULAR rifles? Of course not - that's just you making up crap. Of course, REGULAR rifles are among the LEAST problematic firearms. But there is NO justification for the public to have AUTOMATIC firearms or military-grade sniper rifles.

5) cite gun control examples in countries that allow virtually all of what you just advocate banning

I believe you'll find that just about ALL first-world democracies - including Switzerland and Israel - already do have laws with all the above requirements.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

It is not legal to cross a stateline with guns illegal in another state unless you're transiting through

And when you have personally crossed state lines, how many times has your car been searched prior to allowing you across? And what, exactly, do you think would happen if a state started searching every single car (or truck or semi or boat or plane) that crossed its borders?

In other words, laws are not effective laws if they can't be ENFORCED. This is called "common sense"...which, unfortunately, ain't so common.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

We can boil it down simpler, you as a anti rights advocate (becuase there's nothing liberal about demanding the state violate peoples civil rights) do not believe in a total ban, just a regulatory framework so expensive and complicated for so little benefit that no one bothers to do it. Got it

Um, 'scuse you, but my post was part of a side discussion that had nothing to do with gun rights. Haymarket had connected the racist beliefs of the shooter to politics in the area, and CanadaJohn was trying to claim that there's no connection between racism and politics.

Next time, please make sure that you really understand what someone's post is about before you start slamming that post.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I think most people realize that this is plain evil and does not represent all whites or all young people or all males.

I just want to know that if what being reported is the .45 caliber pistol was a birthday present from his father is true. If it was, why did he think the perfect gift for a 9th grade dropout without any desire to work and been arrested for possession of a controlled substance would be a gun?


".... It's uncertain who bought the gun Roof used.

A senior law enforcement source told CNN the suspect's father had recently bought him a .45-caliber gun for his 21st birthday in April.

But Roof's grandfather says it was just "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with that money...."

Charleston church shooting suspect arrested in N.C. - CNN.com



I've also read where his uncle said that the father bought him a gun for his birthday as well.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Moot, why don't you provide us with a list of mass murderers and what their political leans were?

Why don't you answer the question?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

as I recall, John Wayne Gacy (the basement dwellers fame) was a Democrat party official in Chicago. The zebra killer(s) were hardly conservatives either.

That reminds me, Ted Bundy worked for the RNC in Seattle. Both Gacy and Bundy were serial killers which is different breed in itself. But hey, nice try at deflection and moving the goal posts. Wanna see a list for Republican sex offenders?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Um, no, required firearm registration does not violate the fourth amendment any more than require vehicle registration.

I know, courts these days will uphold anything on nothing more then irrational paranoia... sad really
I said, ban EXTENDED magazines, not standard mags, guy. Please don't try to twist my words.
same difference, something tells me you don't like the factory standard magazines I own that are 12 and 17 rounds
If the idiot in SC hadn't had to change clips five times, how many more would have died?
I don't know, and neither do you. more might not have died, fewer may have died, there was a mass shooting in England 5 years ago where the shooter racked up a 25% higher body count with a double barrel.




Are you referring to my support of mandatory firearm safety training? And you're seriously claiming this has no public safety justification? Dude...you really should read the news sometime.

mandatory training does not, there is no statistical difference in accidents that stands out between states that have said training and ones that do not.

Did I say REGULAR rifles? Of course not - that's just you making up crap.
if you used accurate language to describe your intentions no one would support you. so you have to make stuff up like "military sniper rifle"
Of course, REGULAR rifles are among the LEAST problematic firearms. But there is NO justification for the public to have AUTOMATIC
which are next to never used in any crime, and in fact weren't really used for crime before the 34 and 86 bans.
firearms or military-grade sniper rifles.
like a scoped remington 700? a .308 bolt? an M-1C garand sniper? there is no distinction between military sniper rifles and civilian rifles. in fact civilian firearms have always followed military developments.




I believe you'll find that just about ALL first-world democracies - including Switzerland and Israel - already do have laws with all the above requirements.[/QUOTE]
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Um, 'scuse you, but my post was part of a side discussion that had nothing to do with gun rights. Haymarket had connected the racist beliefs of the shooter to politics in the area, and CanadaJohn was trying to claim that there's no connection between racism and politics.

Next time, please make sure that you really understand what someone's post is about before you start slamming that post.

I only addressed what you wrote. you certainly weren't addressing racism and politics in the post i quoted.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I think what you might be missing is the fact that racism and political beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Try living down in the Deep South sometime and you'll see what we mean. Or you could just re-read about the opposition against the Civil Rights Act in general and segregation in particular in the Deep South.

What I'm getting at is that it's very, very difficult for someone who hasn't lived there to really understand just how deeply the racism is ingrained in Southern society...where among most whites there, racism is understood and tolerated...and IMO among most whites there aged 40 and over, accepted and even expected...

...and this does play very much into their politics.

That's just the way it is in the Deep South.

And that sounds like a bunch of bigotry to me. You get nowhere in dealing with racism when you paint an entire region of your country and everyone who lives there as ingrained with, understanding, and tolerant of racism.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Um, 'scuse you, but my post was part of a side discussion that had nothing to do with gun rights. Haymarket had connected the racist beliefs of the shooter to politics in the area, and CanadaJohn was trying to claim that there's no connection between racism and politics.

Next time, please make sure that you really understand what someone's post is about before you start slamming that post.

My claim, if you want to be fair, is that there's no connection between the obvious racism in this incident and politics as far as we know at this point in time when the bodies are barely cold and not yet buried. To leap to a conclusion, a compulsion, to claim that conservative politics led to this massacre is what I object to.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I know, courts these days will uphold anything on nothing more then irrational paranoia... sad really

Yeah, the same kind of arguments was once made against seatbelt laws, too.

same difference, something tells me you don't like the factory standard magazines I own that are 12 and 17 rounds I don't know, and neither do you. more might not have died, fewer may have died, there was a mass shooting in England 5 years ago where the shooter racked up a 25% higher body count with a double barrel.

Hm, let me see here - you're saying that it's equally likely that LESS people would die if the shooter has, say, a 30-round extended mag for his pistol than if he 'only' has a 12-round mag? What you need to get, guy, is that we are not talking about what would or would not have happened in one particular instance. We are talking about LIKELIHOODS...and someone with a much larger magazine is much more likely to be able to fire his weapon more times before he needs to reload...and this means that he is MORE likely to kill MORE people. LIKELIHOODS, guy. No one knows what would or would not happen in one particular instance...but when we look at statistical LIKELIHOODS, the picture is much more easily understood.

mandatory training does not, there is no statistical difference in accidents that stands out between states that have said training and ones that do not.

Oh - NOW you want to talk statistical likelihoods, hm? Thing about statistics is, it takes more than just a glance at the numbers before one can make a judgement using those numbers. How was the training conducted? What were the requirements for that training? Was it required before one purchased a new class of firearm? Or was it a one-time training that covered everything and nobody needs the training a second time? And was the training really required, was it mandatory in nature? Or was it just offered to those who wanted it, since such people are more likely to be safe gun owners anyway?

I really suggest you take some courses in stats, that you can learn how easy it is for statistics to be flawed...and how incredibly accurate they can be when properly gathered.

if you used accurate language to describe your intentions no one would support you. so you have to make stuff up like "military sniper rifle" which are next to never used in any crime, and in fact weren't really used for crime before the 34 and 86 bans. like a scoped remington 700? a .308 bolt? an M-1C garand sniper? there is no distinction between military sniper rifles and civilian rifles. in fact civilian firearms have always followed military developments.

There very much is a distinction between the rifles you listed above and the higher-end sniper rifles that the military uses today. The M24 system has an effective firing range that is three times that of the M1 Garand.

And again, I believe you'll find that just about ALL first-world democracies - including Switzerland and Israel - already do have laws with all the requirements I listed previously.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

My claim, if you want to be fair, is that there's no connection between the obvious racism in this incident and politics as far as we know at this point in time when the bodies are barely cold and not yet buried. To leap to a conclusion, a compulsion, to claim that conservative politics led to this massacre is what I object to.

You stated that there is "no connection". First, that statement is a completed judgement. Second, racism - like every other 'ism' out there - plays a part in politics, not only on a national or regional level, but also on a personal level.

Third, when I connect conservative politics to racism, I'm normally referring to Southern Conservative politics...and yes sir, in the Deep South, politics and racism are deeply entwined indeed. Anyone who says differently does so out either out of ignorance or is being intentionally misleading.

Now, does all that absolutely guarantee that conservative politics led to the massacre? No. But modern conservative politics encourages a societal climate that makes such tragedies more likely. Here's a great example: in the 1950's and 1960's, did the conservative politicians in the Deep South condone lynchings? Of course not - those racist politicians condemned the lynchings again and again. But did their openly racist statements and policies make those same lynchings more likely? Yep, sure did.

So the answer to the question of whether conservative politics led to the massacre in SC is: at least to some extent, almost certainly.
 
Back
Top Bottom