• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Mass shooting at church in Charleston, SC

Status
Not open for further replies.
marrec said:
Well, you're specifically denying that this was yet another act of white terrorism, when it has all the traditional hallmarks of such. Gun violence, targeting of black people, single young man.

What we really need to ask ourselves, is why white culture is allowing our young people to be indoctrinated in this kind of violent extremism.
Click to expand...

You can't police what your child does online, and there's every chance they could stumble on something like StormFront or /pol/ or one of the more fascism-supportive Chans. For all we know his parents are actually kind tolerant people and he was indoctrinated (or radicalized, hmmmmmm?) online right under their noses. It's a hard problem to solve.

shiba5 said:
It was somewhere north of Aiken way out on a dirt road - the kind where you'll run over wild turkeys if you drive too fast. If I'd had a camera I would have taken a picture because I was very surprised to see it. I never saw anything so overt during the rest of my time there, and I never drove up that way again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well at least they feel the pressure to keep tucked away in the backwoods. That's something at least.
 
jmdajr said:
If we have enough proof that he had political aims besides just 'I hate black" folk, you got no argument from me.
Click to expand...

Hating black people is enough. That was clearly his motivation. Attack a black church to embolden racists and terrorize the black community. Racism is political.
 
Zuhzuhzombie!! said:
repost:


Anyone know if the guy said anything about "taking our nation back" or if he just said the awful race/rape statement?
Click to expand...

LpfOKiq.jpg


From a witness to the shootings.
 
marrec said:
Right!

Also, white on black violence is almost always politically motivated because they're indoctrinated from a young age by a system that treats black people as expendable and lesser.

In point of fact, he said as he was killing them "you're taking over the country" which seems pretty politically motivated to me.

Dude was a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Is it always politically motivated? Is black on white violence always politically or economically motivated. I doubt it's that simple
 
jmdajr said:
I don't see how this is a terrorist attack. To me a Terrorist attack is one against institution/country/nation etc. based on religion.

This is however a mass murder from a mentally deranged racist. The facts are all right there. To me the church is just a location like a mall or school.
Click to expand...

Was the Boston Marathon bombing a terrorist attack?
 
jmdajr said:
I don't see how this is a terrorist attack. To me a Terrorist attack is one against institution/country/nation etc. based on religion.

This is however a mass murder from a mentally deranged racist. The facts are all right there. To me the church is just a location like a mall or school.
Click to expand...
So terrorism to you is only when Muslims do it?
 
Whitman's Ghost said:
Is it always polticially motivated? Is black on white violence always politically or economically motivated. I doubt it's that simple
Click to expand...

I absolutely think that racially motivated white on black violence is at least partially politically motivated yes.

Of course, there are numerous other factors and motivations, but our political system and media help encourage this shit.
 
jmdajr said:
If we have enough proof that he had political aims besides just 'I hate black" folk, you got no argument from me.
Click to expand...

Let's ask the black community if they feel terrorized by this maybe?

I think terrorism is usually politically motivated, or religious, but it doesn't have to be. The goal is to send a message to a group of people through violence and fear.
 
marrec said:
I absolutely think that racially motivated white on black violence is at least partially politically motivated yes.

Of course, there are numerous other factors and motivations, but our political system and media help encourage this shit.
Click to expand...

I would argue that it's entirely politically motivated. White supremacy is a world view and a societal model that millions of people subscribe to. Whites rarely hate blacks because they exist, they hate them for what they represent politically.

BigDes said:
Racism is inherently political. You believe one section of the polis is inferior to you/dangerous/evil etc.
Click to expand...

This.
 
marrec said:
I absolutely think that racially motivated white on black violence is at least partially politically motivated yes.

Of course, there are numerous other factors and motivations, but our political system and media help encourage this shit.
Click to expand...

Oh I fully agree. Our media is a truly destructive device at this point.
 
Dunno how you could say this isn't terrorism. I mean the guy let a woman go solely because he wanted her to tell people what he had done so that it would instill uh...terror.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Not a fan of Obama's comments on guns. That shit is weak, meaningless at this point and only serve to turn this into another partisan spectacle. This guy was given a gun for his birthday, and there is no evidence yet that he had a criminal record or anything that would prevent him from having a gun. So where does gun control come into play? He would have still had a gun even if SC had tougher laws.

It's a tired narrative that is intellectually insulting. The vast majority of gun violence in this country comes from handguns. Yet nobody is talking about banning handguns, and background checks do nothing given that many of these killers don't have a record. So what's the solution?

You want to address gun violence? Go after straw purchases and the trafficking of illegal guns on the underground market. The American public has made it pretty fucking clear they don't give a fuck about gun violence, and it's high time a politician called them out instead of this nonstop "soul searching" bullshit Obama pulls. Let it go, it's not working.
Click to expand...

While you're right that Obama's previous attempts at gun control are irrelevant to this particular case, you're acting like gun control wasn't already part of the narrative. Since this morning the media has been taking interviews from people discussing gun control in one form or another, whether it be in regards to the killer or the church itself needing to have guns. Obama would have been asked about it sooner or later anyway.
 
Just saw this in a CNN article:

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.
Click to expand...

I wonder how dear old dad is feeling about that 'gift' right now?

I also wonder if dad is the one who filled his son's head with all that hate in the first place.
 
It's pretty obvious that this is terrorism, in the classic sense of the word. The killer wanted to disrupt the everyday lives of other people by making them fear for their lives, the fact that it was a specific ethnic/racial group being targeted actually lends more credibility to that definition; not less.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Not a fan of Obama's comments on guns. That shit is weak, meaningless at this point and only serve to turn this into another partisan spectacle. This guy was given a gun for his birthday, and there is no evidence yet that he had a criminal record or anything that would prevent him from having a gun. So where does gun control come into play? He would have still had a gun even if SC had tougher laws.

It's a tired narrative that is intellectually insulting. The vast majority of gun violence in this country comes from handguns. Yet nobody is talking about banning handguns, and background checks do nothing given that many of these killers don't have a record. So what's the solution?

You want to address gun violence? Go after straw purchases and the trafficking of illegal guns on the underground market. The American public has made it pretty fucking clear they don't give a fuck about gun violence, and it's high time a politician called them out instead of this nonstop "soul searching" bullshit Obama pulls. Let it go, it's not working.
Click to expand...

you should take a look at this.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Also there is a major problem with how guns get into peoples hands. There needs to be more scrunity possibly more training involved for people before they are even allowed to buy an handgun.

I think there can be some measures in place but still allow guns in america. For example in my state they have a highly reduced number of gun owner related deaths or issues because they require mandatory training before allowing anyone to have a gun.

Another point of contention is that people who have guns "stolen" or report them stolen but are actually selling them to bad individuals there needs to be more things in place for gun owners to have more accountability with their guns even if there isnt an outright ban.

I think at LEAST you can agree there needs to be some kind of accountability in place.
 
jim-jam bongs said:
It's pretty obvious that this is terrorism, in the classic sense of the word. The killer wanted to disrupt the everyday lives of other people by making them fear for their lives, the fact that it was a specific ethnic/racial group being targeted actually lends more credibility to that definition; not less.
Click to expand...

I don't think people disagree when it is explained. With one look at this kid though it's pretty obvious we are dealing with one stupid motherfucker who is possibly insane too. His image is just reprehensible to me. He looks sick and ill and like he is on meth or prescriptions or something. Or I guess on the other hand NOT on prescriptions. Hard to tell.

His niece and others apparently say he was shy and withdrawn and they thought he was on drugs.
 
Opiate said:
I understand, I'm not suggesting that's invalid.

I'm just pointing out how extreme that could get. In theory, you could have a battery in your trunk for your car in case your battery happens to die at a very inopportune time. In theory, you could keep a satchel with basic rations and tools in your closet in case the apocalypse hits and you need to leave your house in a very sudden rush and go in to the wilderness. In theory, you could keep a backup computer in case your computer happens to die at a time when you really need to finish a new report for work or paper for school.

The list of things you could potentially own "just in case the situation arises" is nearly endless. As I said, this is where hoarding mentality comes from: people who look at everything they own and imagine a situation where perhaps possibly maybe it will be needed at some point in the future, so they shouldn't throw it away. Then they end up with a house full of junk because all of it could be, potentially, useful at some future date.

Again, I am not saying that any and all preparation of any kind is bad, just that preparation and "just in case" behavior isn't inherently a good thing. It can be bad.
Click to expand...
Right, but you're mainly describing minor annoyances. Owning a gun can literally be the difference between life and death.

Personally, as long as citizens have access to weapons, I will as well. The more weapons there are in this country, the more likely you are going to need one, and our police force is under no obligation to protect citizens, so I will protect myself.
 
jmdajr said:
Oh yeah tell me more?

At least some folks took the time to post their thoughts on the situation.

But thanks.
Click to expand...
To your credit, you don't seem to have any issue with conceding where you may be wrong . But it was a stupid ass post, seriously.


And I already told you where you were in error.
 
Damerman said:
bro, comon man... just look at the word terrorism... terror... this is self explanatory... wtf.
Click to expand...

Again, a lot of people see the word terrorism as it is mostly defined and used by our government. It's just a usage issue.

People do not use the word terrorism for mass shooters or if they do it is rarely done. The government basically reserved the word for the Middle East and parts of Africa.
 
Pepiope said:
Right, but you're mainly describing minor annoyances. Owning a gun can literally be the difference between life and death.
Click to expand...

And it also poses dangers that owning, say, a backup PC doesn't. Owning a backup PC doesn't increase your risk of suicide, nor is it likely to kill your daughter when your son finds it and plays with it. Yes, the value of a gun may be higher, but the opportunity costs are higher, too.

Personally, as long as citizens have access to weapons, I will as well. The more weapons there are in this country, the more likely you are going to need one, and our police force is under no obligation to protect citizens, so I will protect myself.
Click to expand...

It is definitely true that there are two nash equilibriums regarding guns; very few / zero owners and many / all owners.
 
Pepiope said:
Right, but you're mainly describing minor annoyances. Owning a gun can literally be the difference between life and death.

Personally, as long as citizens have access to weapons, I will as well. The more weapons there are in this country, the more likely you are going to need one, and our police force is under no obligation to protect citizens, so I will protect myself.
Click to expand...

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Defensive Use2 564
Accidental Shooting2 900
Click to expand...

If anything, you're more likely to harm yourself or your family/friends than in defense. "Protection" is a mostly imaginary benefit of guns.
 
Imm0rt4l said:
To your credit, you don't seem to have any issue with conceding where you may be wrong. But it was a stupid ass post, seriously.
Click to expand...

And that's how we get ahead in the world. By telling people they are stupid.

I'm not here to refute anything. Seems more evidence is coming about the man's motivations, but most I have read has simply been "hate crime."

I guess terrorist attack and hate rime can be one and the same, or in the same circle.
 
So many white people are so annoyed/afraid to discuss race. They prefer to have their heads in the ground and act like everything is ok. They're afraid to confront their privilege point blank.
 
I don't know if it's been posted yet, but with all the discussion between hate crime and terrorist act, I was reminded of the article from American Prospect that was discussing the difference between the two when the FBI declined initially to call the Hadayat shootings at LAX a terrorist attack.

http://prospect.org/article/terror-and-hate

Hate crimes are directed against certain races, religious groups and their adherents. Though some hate crimes have seemed like the random work of violent bigots, the goal is often to strategically intimidate members of the targeted group. A burning cross is a sign that anyone can read; it says, "We don't want you here."

Terrorism, though it lacks a universal definition, generally means an attack on civilian targets with the intention of spreading fear and advancing a political agenda. Terrorism, like hate crimes, sends its victims a message. The burned shell of a bus, a bombed village and the great smoking ruins of the World Trade Center are an attempt to say, "We can defeat you."

But because they rely on criminals' motives, distinctions between terrorism and hate crimes are in many cases arbitrary. To members of al-Qaeda and groups like it, politics and religion are inseparable. Mullah Omar established a religious state, and the scattered members of the Taliban would ostensibly still like to. The same can be said of certain Zionist elements in Israel and some American neo-Nazi militias. Legally their crimes could make them terrorists, or hate criminals, or both.
Click to expand...
 
King Cobra said:
I am all for stricter requirements I am a big supporter of preventing unqualified people from owning guns, I am against only being able to have a handgun.
Click to expand...

What type of gun do you need access to in order to protect yourself from whatever danger you think is heading your way? I'm curious. This current system is atrocious, and puts endless guns on the market that nobody in their right mind would ever need unless they were planning to rob a bank or start a war. We need to streamline the types of gun to one-to-three primary categories, and pass legislation to enforce massive safety measures on all weapons. Fingerprint locks for guns mandatory. Etc.

I mean ideally the rigorous process one would have to go through in order to get a gun in my hypothetical alternative America where lives matter more than the individual liberty to put everyone's safety at risk would eliminate many people from the process, so we'd start with significantly less gun owners.

King Cobra said:
I am not talking about hoarding lamp shades. We are talking about something that has been proven of great use in dire situations. I'm on mobile but there have been many times where someone having firearms prevented something horrible from happening. I am aware that there are far more storied of people committing atrocities with guns but that will happen regardless of our laws. Just look at most of South America.
Click to expand...

The United States has far and away the most violence per capita of any developed nation. We also by a huge margin own the most guns. These guns are responsible for a huge portion of these violent crimes. South America isn't evidence of anything.

gunmurdersjwu2c.jpg


Yes, some atrocities will always happen... but contrary to your implication, they would not happen even a fraction as much if we forced strict gun control/monitoring on all gun owners, or eliminated gun ownership altogether. Just by passing such legislation, we would literally without exaggeration be saving thousands of lives.

And contrary to the propaganda, when strict gun laws are enacted, it becomes exponentially more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons, and far more expensive. Crime does go down; criminals may not follow the law, but they follow the market. Some criminals still will be able to illegally own a weapon and yes this strategy would mean that you'd have a harder time protecting yourself against them in the unbelievably unlikely event you encountered a violent criminal with a gun. But the upside to this strategy I'm talking about means that if we do it right, your likelihood of being safe for the rest of your life is statistically way higher than in a society where guns are allowed to roam freely as now.
 
HyperionX said:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/



If anything, you're more likely to harm yourself or your family/friends than in defense. "Protection" is a mostly imaginary benefit of guns.
Click to expand...

I agree in many instances. There are people who own guns just to protect themselves and they are the ones that end up getting into more trouble at times. Not a generalization. There are plenty of responsible gun owners out there.

Handguns should only be allowed to certain people though IMO. And you really shouldn't go looking for trouble like we see in the news a lot either. If you go looking often enough you will find what you are looking for.
 
Guys, guys. It's can't be terrorism, he's white! Aren't churches about penance and absolving one another for their sins? He wasn't racist, he's clearly just mentally ill - he probably got dressed with the lights off and didn't realize he was bearing the insignias of wholly racist institution. Haven't we all had days like that? It's not like when a person of color is mentally ill and immediately considered a crazed gunman ready to shoot on sight, white people don't do that when they're mentally ill. I say there's got to be some facts we just aren't aware of yet. It's probably a bold new frontier of misunderstanding we just can't quantify yet!
 
Whitman's Ghost said:
Again, a lot of people see the word terrorism as it is mostly defined and used by our government. It's just a usage issue.

People do not use the word terrorism for mass shooters or if they do it is rarely done. The government basically reserved the word for the Middle East and parts of Africa.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's wrong of me to think like that, but yeah I see terrorism in the big picture type of schemes and not a one man army type of deal. And maybe it's my fault for not being educated enough on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mass shooting at Brown campus & MIT physicist murdered [update: shooter down]
8 9 10 11 12
578
3K
dave_d replied
2026 just started and here comes the first disaster - Fire in Amsterdam vondelpark church
2
51
925
Brucey replied
Kick streamer Sam Pepper hurts little Indian girl by shooting firework at her…
26
976
Dr.Guru of Peru replied
Will mass layoffs caused by AI result in the end of feminism?
2
72
2K
jason10mm replied
I went toa shooting range for the first time.
2
59
1K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Top Bottom