Charleston church shooting: Multiple fatalities in South Carolina, source says

[mtangelsfan]

There is no race baiting in this one.  Kid killed those people because they were black, this isn't debatable.

 

Now, personally, I don't think it is worse because the victims were in a church.  I don't think its worse because the victims were black.

 

People who are filled with real hate just need to find an excuse to act on that hatred.  This loser's excuse was race.

 

Edit:  I see the president has seen fit to use this to talk about guns.  Whatever, but sooner or later there has to be a real discussion about why people are getting to the point where they want to kill others.  What is the atmosphere?  What are the circumstances?

 

There is something deeper that needs to be discussed.

[red321]

Poor Timing Award...Charleston paper puts Sticker/Ad on front page of newspaper...$30 gets you everything...pistol, protection, training, etc.

 

[Mark68]

On the contrary, if the disease was too many white blood cells, the doctor would be fighting to reduce them.

 

By the way, it just highlights the different ideologies when it comes to this.  Too many bad people or too many guns.  I don't think there is a point arguing it on this forum.  It is all philosophical.

It's not necessarily either/or.

 

Too many guns makes it too easy for too many bad people to obtain them. Restricting the access of bad people to obtain them, to me, is a logical step that nobody seems to want to consider.

 

Hence my idea of making psych evals a part of the background check. Yes, it would make them more expensive and cause more delays. Sometimes freedom has a price or an inconvenience.

 

But by no means should it be easy for bad people to get guns.

[Jason]

There is no race baiting in this one.  Kid killed those people because they were black, this isn't debatable.

 

Now, personally, I don't think it is worse because the victims were in a church.  I don't think its worse because the victims were black.

 

People who are filled with real hate just need to find an excuse to act on that hatred.  This loser's excuse was race.

 

Edit:  I see the president has seen fit to use this to talk about guns.  Whatever, but sooner or later there has to be a real discussion about why people are getting to the point where they want to kill others.  What is the atmosphere?  What are the circumstances?

 

There is something deeper that needs to be discussed.

My thoughts exactly

[red321]

There is no race baiting in this one.  Kid killed those people because they were black, this isn't debatable.

 

Now, personally, I don't think it is worse because the victims were in a church.  I don't think its worse because the victims were black.

 

People who are filled with real hate just need to find an excuse to act on that hatred.  This loser's excuse was race.

 

Edit:  I see the president has seen fit to use this to talk about guns.  Whatever, but sooner or later there has to be a real discussion about why people are getting to the point where they want to kill others.  What is the atmosphere?  What are the circumstances?

 

There is something deeper that needs to be discussed.

 

I agree that their is a deeper issue here, especially when you consider the historical nature of the location and what it symbolized and a state that proudly flies a symbol of treason and racial hatred.

 

Though let's keep in mind...I read somewhere this is the 13th time the President has had to address a mass shooting.

 

13th time.

[Jason]

It's not necessarily either/or.

 

Too many guns makes it too easy for too many bad people to obtain them. Restricting the access of bad people to obtain them, to me, is a logical step that nobody seems to want to consider.

 

Hence my idea of making psych evals a part of the background check. Yes, it would make them more expensive and cause more delays. Sometimes freedom has a price or an inconvenience.

 

But by no means should it be easy for bad people to get guns.

But they WILL still get them regardless of any bans or restrictions you place. This guy's dad gave it to him so chances are he wasn't able to obtain himself in the legal way. I think the guy in the Newton shootings got his from his mom too.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Angels N Skins

[arch stanton]

And how many times have other presidents addressed mass death due to drone strike?

[mtangelsfan]

I just don't like the oversimplistic views of "he just hates black people" or "if he didn't have a gun".

 

I do think these are conversations to have, but the tend to be the ONLY conversations had.  That is where we miss it.

[Mark68]

But they WILL still get them. This guy's dad gave it to him so chances are he wasn't able to obtain himself in the legal way.

Then maybe that needs to be addressed as well.

 

I will be the first to admit that you can't keep all bad people or sick people from getting guns. But it should certainly not be as easy as it is now.

 

James Holmes, the Aurora theater killer (trial is ongoing here locally) got his gun thru legal methods and purchased over 6000 rounds of ammunition. Online. That can't happen.

 

But he was also undergoing psychiatric treatment at the time.

[halobob]

This sign in Libya says it best:

[red321]

I just don't like the oversimplistic views of "he just hates black people" or "if he didn't have a gun".

 

I do think these are conversations to have, but the tend to be the ONLY conversations had.  That is where we miss it.

 

I don't disagree MT. This wasn't done in a vacuum.

 

I'm a big fan of Charles Pierce and I think his take on this is pretty spot on.

 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35793/charleston-shooting-discussion/

 

An excerpt

 

What happened in a church in Charleston, South Carolina on Wednesday night is a lot of things, but one thing it's not is "unthinkable." Somebody thought long and hard about it. Somebody thought to load the weapon. Somebody thought to pick the church. Somebody thought to sit, quietly, through some of Wednesday night bible study. Somebody thought to stand up and open fire, killing nine people, including the pastor. Somebody reportedly thought to leave one woman alive so she could tell his story to the world. Somebody thought enough to flee. What happened in that church was a lot of things, but unthinkable is not one of them....

....There is a timidity that the country can no longer afford. This was not an unthinkable act. A man may have had a rat's nest for a mind, but it was well thought out. It was a cool, considered crime, as well planned as any bank robbery or any computer fraud. If people do not want to speak of it, or think about it, it's because they do not want to follow the story where it inevitably leads. It's because they do not want to follow this crime all the way back to the mother of all American crimes, the one that Denmark Vesey gave his life to avenge. What happened on Wednesday night was a lot of things. A massacre was only one of them.

[Blarg]

Poor Timing Award...Charleston paper puts Sticker/Ad on front page of newspaper...$30 gets you everything...pistol, protection, training, etc.

 

 

Looks like a bad job of photoshop.

[Spirit]

This is really sad.  Prayers for the family and friends of the victims. 

[gotbeer]

It's not necessarily either/or.

 

Too many guns makes it too easy for too many bad people to obtain them. Restricting the access of bad people to obtain them, to me, is a logical step that nobody seems to want to consider.

 

Hence my idea of making psych evals a part of the background check. Yes, it would make them more expensive and cause more delays. Sometimes freedom has a price or an inconvenience.

 

But by no means should it be easy for bad people to get guns.

 

I'd am so against this.  The government is already intrusive enough.  Opening the can of worms of psych evals is just a step too far for my tastes in big brother.  Because we all know that the government will hold all that information securely and not use it for any other purpose.  This is just giving the NSA and police more rights to go 1984 on you.  

 

This isn't saying that if a doctor believes that you are a danger, they should be able to tag you and have the police hold any firearms you may have.  Similar to if a doctor doesn't think you are capable of driving anymore, they can tag you and get your license suspended.

[red321]

 

Poor Timing Award...Charleston paper puts Sticker/Ad on front page of newspaper...$30 gets you everything...pistol, protection, training, etc.

 

 

Looks like a bad job of photoshop.

 

 

Does it? Paper probably should have done more investigation before they publicly apologized I guess.

[Mark68]

I'd am so against this.  The government is already intrusive enough.  Opening the can of worms of psych evals is just a step too far for my tastes in big brother.  Because we all know that the government will hold all that information securely and not use it for any other purpose.  This is just giving the NSA and police more rights to go 1984 on you.  

 

This isn't saying that if a doctor believes that you are a danger, they should be able to tag you and have the police hold any firearms you may have.  Similar to if a doctor doesn't think you are capable of driving anymore, they can tag you and get your license suspended.

But there is no way to do that currently, without violating doctor/patient confidentiality. If there was, the Aurora shooter would have been tagged as he was undergoing psychiatric treatment at the University of Colorado Hospital (which he had actually worked at as a med student...BTW, that is my hospital).

 

The government does have a responsibility to its citizens to provide some modicum level of safety. After all, that's what the military is supposed to be for (and was the original intent of the second amendment). The government already does background checks on you when you purchase a gun. If you are pulled over while driving, you have to provide a government-issued ID, as well as government-mandated auto insurance and proof that you have registered the car...with the government. So the government already knows where you live, what car you drive, and what insurance company you have. They do this for your safety and protection.

 

But what rights do they violate? Right to privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

[gotbeer]

But there is no way to do that currently, without violating doctor/patient confidentiality. If there was, the Aurora shooter would have been tagged as he was undergoing psychiatric treatment at the University of Colorado Hospital (which he had actually worked at as a med student...BTW, that is my hospital).

 

The government does have a responsibility to its citizens to provide some modicum level of safety. After all, that's what the military is supposed to be for (and was the original intent of the second amendment). The government already does background checks on you when you purchase a gun. If you are pulled over while driving, you have to provide a government-issued ID, as well as government-mandated auto insurance and proof that you have registered the car...with the government. So the government already knows where you live, what car you drive, and what insurance company you have. They do this for your safety and protection.

 

But what rights do they violate? Right to privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

What they are already doing with background checks is already some modicum level of safety.  What you are suggesting is throwing the doctor/patient confidentiality out the window and letting the government pretty much have free run at anything.  It's already bad enough that the Patriot act throws many things out the window already like the Wiretap Act.  Hell, Boston already showed that you can be killed if you think about killing a police officer (see Minority Report).  How about the war on drugs, and taking kingpins and their cash down.  Then the police expanding that so that they can take any cash from anyone for just the inference that it might have something to do with drugs, then making you prove that it wasn't.  All the while they don't have to charge you with any crime, they just keep whatever loot they want.  How about the war on drugs then expanded to impound rights for DUI's, even if you were found not to be DUI.  

 

So no.  In no way should the government get a foothold on using psych tests to screen people.  

[Tank]

I'm guessing that if this guy was required to have some kind of psychiatric examination prior to obtaining his firearm, it might have triggered a red flag or two. Just like it would have with the Aurora theater shooter. Perhaps that should be part of the background check.

 

IMO, the second amendment was written in a time and place that had certain assumptions that are no longer valid. We haven't had a "well-regulated militia" for over a century, since the creation of the National Guard (which has its own armories). Also, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, the only "arms" that were available where breech-loaded muskets (and pistols), rifles, and cannon. Things have changed.

 

The first amendment has certain restrictions where safety is concerned. For instance, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We have to look at the second amendment with the same logic.

 

this is a well-reasoned approach, and would make for a good starting point in a discussion about updating the interpretation of the amendment.

[Mark68]

What they are already doing with background checks is already some modicum level of safety.  What you are suggesting is throwing the doctor/patient confidentiality out the window and letting the government pretty much have free run at anything.  It's already bad enough that the Patriot act throws many things out the window already like the Wiretap Act.  Hell, Boston already showed that you can be killed if you think about killing a police officer (see Minority Report).  How about the war on drugs, and taking kingpins and their cash down.  Then the police expanding that so that they can take any cash from anyone for just the inference that it might have something to do with drugs, then making you prove that it wasn't.  All the while they don't have to charge you with any crime, they just keep whatever loot they want.  How about the war on drugs then expanded to impound rights for DUI's, even if you were found not to be DUI.  

 

So no.  In no way should the government get a foothold on using psych tests to screen people.  

At least the Patriot Act was not renewed.

 

I'm with you on the seizure of vehicles and assets from people accused of drunk driving or drug activity, as I believe this expressly violates the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a practice that I have long detested.

 

I believe just a simple yea or nay in terms of whether the individual is able to obtain a firearm, not necessarily why it's a nay, would be sufficient. That way, the government (or whomever stores/accesses that data) has as little to go on as possible.

 

Many of these crimes are being committed by people with no criminal history (so they won't have anything in background checks, anyway), but are very sick people.

[Ray McKigney]

Crazy shit happening in the world.

[Punk]

[wopphil]

You can't eliminate crazies. And you often don't know their capabilities until it is too late. Trying to get to "the root of the problem" therefore won't do a damn thing. And that is especially true considering so many (if not most) of these mass murderers are affluent white kids.

But you can eliminate guns.

[mtangelsfan]

You can't eliminate crazies. And you often don't know their capabilities until it is too late. Trying to get to "the root of the problem" therefore won't do a damn thing. And that is especially true considering so many (if not most) of these mass murderers are affluent white kids.

But you can eliminate guns.

 

Except for that nasty second ammendment.  and to just dismiss the root cause as unsolvable when no effort at all has ever been made seems pretty empty.

[Spirit]

Only took 4 posts for this to turn into a gun control thread.  Well done.

 

Off to the political forum it goes. 

[Jason]

this is a well-reasoned approach, and would make for a good starting point in a discussion about updating the interpretation of the amendment.

Should we update and interpret the other ones too? Not sure it's a door that should be opened