BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 08:34 AM

Yes. It is a great improvement. If the taxpayers of South Carolina want to foot the bill for yet another idiotic shrine to treason, slavery and white supremacy, that's on them. At least folks will have to pay museum admission to see it. I doubt there will be many takers in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: OldPossum
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM

Apparently they are going to build a "multimillion-dollar shrine" to house the recently lowered flag. Is that really an improvement?

News article: Confederate Flag Taken Down in South Carolina

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 10:59 AM

Finally, that emblem of treason, slavery and white supremacy has been consigned to the dustbin, where it belongs. Now, on to Mississippi - last in war, last inpeace, and last in the hearts of its countrymen.


==============

South Carolina Lowers Confederate Flag, and an Era Ends

By RICHARD FAUSSET and ALAN BLINDER
10:30 AM, JULY 10, 2015
NY TIMES

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Closing a chapter on a symbol of the Deep South and its history of resistance and racial animus, South Carolina on Friday lowered the Confederate battle flag from outside its State House, where it had flown for more than 50 years.

The flag came down amid heavy security and loud cheers at a Friday morning event that followed days of emotional debate in the State Legislature and, on Thursday, the final approval of Gov. Nikki R. Haley, who had pledged that the symbol would be lowered "with dignity."

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:05 PM

Thank you for contacting the office of Governor Haley

Monday, July 6, 2015 1:12 PM
From:
To:         GregF [e-mail]


Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.    These have been very difficult times for South Carolina, but our hearts and minds remain fixed on the nine families and the communities shaken by this tragedy. Their grace and strength set a powerful example for us all.

Even in the midst of our grief, South Carolina set about the process of healing – not by talking about issues that divide us – but by hugging our neighbors, holding vigils, honoring those we lost, and falling to our knees in prayer. We came together as a state, as a unified people, to remember those we lost and to begin this healing process.

We've also come together in acknowledging that certain symbols and events of our past resonate differently among us.    For some, the Confederate flag represents a history of their ancestry and heritage.   For others, the flag is a deeply painful reminder of a brutally oppressive past.   

Inspired by the victims' families and the re-opening of Emanuel A.M.E. church, I felt compelled to make a statement about moving the flag from the Statehouse grounds.    This is a moment in which we can say that the flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state, and that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony.

The time has come for us to set the flag among the other markers of our history so we can set our eyes on the great promise of a united South Carolina.    God bless.

My very best,

Nikki R. Haley

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 09:14 AM

It's real historical significance is actually is from it's use, in the 20th Century, by segregationists, white supremecists, and such folks.

Not quite. It is significant because it WAS flown by Confederate units fighting to mantain and expand chattel slavery during the Civil War. It is significant because it was used to terrify southern Blacks both during Reconstruction and "Redemption". It is significant because it has been for the last 140 years or so employed by the KKK and other white supremecist groups, was so employed in the 20th Century, as you say, and is still, currently, so employed.

It may not have much "historical significance" to you, Stim, but it sure as hell does to Black folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 09:49 PM

My point, GregF, is that it doesn't really have the historical significance that it's cracked up to have--it was one of many flags used by state units in the Civil War, and was relatively unimportant. It's real historical significance is actually is from it's use, in the 20th Century, by segregationists, white supremecists, and such folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 08:23 PM

It was not adopted as the national flag of the Confederacy - that bunch of traitors that took up arms against the government of the United States- but it was the battle flag flown by military units fighting against the government of the United States for the right to retain and propogate chattel slavery throughout the Civil War and was recognized as such.

Enough with the weasel words, Stim.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 06:28 PM

Except that the "Confederate Flag", as you call it, never historically represented the Confederate States of America as a country, and was never recognized as one of the national flags. It was, in fact, rejected as the flag of the Confederacy in 1861. The fact that "The South Shall Rise Again" crowd has been waving the wrong flag for most of the last century shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:37 PM

So after all this kerfuffle, it's obvious that the Confederate Flag was about the Civil War, the Civil war was about slavery, that slavery was about racism, that racism continued after the Civil War, that the defeated Confederate states got to keep their flag, and the keeping of that flag was about slavery.

Where's Azizi when you need her?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:52 PM

They are not necessarily racists, but they don't care what you think of them and they want you to know it.

Yup, assholes are pretty much always going to be assholes, come what may.

it is a dramatic way of not doing much of anything.

Actually, its doing a great deal in that some people of intelligence have finally decided after 150 years that Black folks having that emblem shoved in their faces is akin to flying the Nazi flag in front of a Jewish Temple.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:45 PM

Banning that flag is a symbolic gesture, which is another way of saying that it is a dramatic way of not doing much of anything.

Important point to keep in mind is that a lot of people at wave that flag do it because they know it pisses people off. it's a way of saying, "redneck and proud". They are not necessarily racists, but they don't care what you think of them and they want you to know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:43 PM

Flag-wavers who really do think of it as "just the flag of the South" should be more sensitive to history, but they're not necessarily "racists."

Not necessarily, but if not they're sure as hell insensitive self-absorbed jackasses with no knowledge of history.

Banning the flags at NASCAR won't measurably affect racist feelings or behavior, so we can't know if it's "working" or not.

We'll know its "working" to the extent that people of colorwill be seeing less and less of that emblem of slavery and racism.

That small step is the least the dominant white culture can do after 150 years.

And you're not going to talk or reason people out of being racists in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 10:24 AM

Pretty obviously I didn't mean "When will they stop waving flags at NASCAR?"

The bigger question is, "How will we know that banning the flags is having a significant effect on the racist behavior of certain NASCAR fans (and others) - including some of those who don't wave the flags?"

Flag-wavers who really do think of it as "just the flag of the South" should be more sensitive to history, but they're not necessarily "racists." Banning their flag will push some of them in exactly that direction.

Banning the flags at NASCAR won't measurably affect racist feelings or behavior, so we can't know if it's "working" or not.

That was my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 09:17 AM

The BBC's blog on white supremacist church burnings:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-33368317

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 08:25 PM

As an informal survey, I can report that no matter how often Black churches burn down, the denying of arson by white FB friends is far outstripping the certainty about arson by Black folks. My FB group is quite large and diverse.... It's mostly the Black folks (including organizations representing their interests) that are calling for a wait and see approach, and pursuing complete, time-consuming investigations.

The folks AT the burned churches are mostly thinking about how to get the churches back on their feet.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 08:17 PM

How will we know if it's "working"?

If they stop, or reduce the frequency, of sticking their finger in the eye of every Black peron in the U S of A.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 07:06 PM

> we'll see how well that works.

How will we know if it's "working"?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 05:11 PM

NASCAR has banned the rebel flag, yay. Pourvu que ca dure, and we'll see how well that works.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 10:48 AM

If someone as gun oriented as me can put mine down for good so should the rest of the country. We can no longer sit back and watch innocent people get slaughtered by them. I am sick of every day it's the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 09:07 AM

but it's surely statistically improbable for all or even most of them to be accidental.

Agreed- especially since burning Black churches in the southern U.S. took over as a form of public entertainment as regular lynchings began to go out of general favor.

Perhaps the South still needs Mencken's brass bands.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 09:01 AM

> it's surely statistically improbable for all or even most of them to be accidental.

Not too improbable at all. A former FBI official told CNN yesterday that a church burns down somewhere in the United States almost every day. Some of those churches are black.

Most church fires are caused by bad wiring, lightning, etc. About 16% are arson. In most of those cases the arson has been carried out by a disgruntled employee or parishioner.

Investigation is needed; but racist terror (presumably organized through social media) is hardly a forgone conclusion.

Not yesterday's report, but similar:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/south-carolina-church-fire-mount-zion-ame/

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 03:27 AM

In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies - "They would say that, wouldn't they".

I thought that it was 6 black churches burned, not 8, but it's surely statistically improbable for all or even most of them to be accidental.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 15 - 08:55 AM

Fire at black church in South Carolina wasn't arson
By BRUCE SMITH and MEG KINNARD, Associated Press
Wednesday, July 1, 2015

GREELEYVILLE, S.C. (AP) — A fire that destroyed a black church that the KKK burned down in June 1995 was not the work of an arsonist, a federal law enforcement source said Wednesday.

Preliminary indications are that the fire at the Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville was not intentionally set and was not arson, the source said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly. The fire is still under investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:53 AM

Donuel, What is your source regarding lynchings? Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:47 AM

Do you dare know that 8 black churches have gone up in flames this week in the south? The news is carefully edited to be sure recent events do not escalate but its still knowable for those who want to know. A story about 2 escaped convicts has made good cover for the inflammatory killings that were ruled hate crimes instead of terrorism despite the confession of the killer's political motivation to mass murder blacks to inspire war.




Lynching black men in the south is as prevalent today as ever. It's just not done in the village square by celebrating white people.
2014 a black teenager was hung in South Carolina. He was judged as a suicide despite evidence that made that conclusion impossible. In 2014 Mississippi alone had 431 black hangings. They were all ruled suicide. The last confirmed lynching in MD was in 1986. The unconfirmed lynchings number in the thousands since they are all quickly ruled suicides 2014.





The Confederate flag in Charleston came down. A black woman climbed the pole and brought it down. The video showed the extraordinary care taken by the police to make sure the flag did not touch the ground was laughable.

The confederate flag went back up before the woman was in jail.


What is this 'dare we talk?' speech? New age causation theory or silent racism?

Congratulation to PRESIDENT OBAMA for his honest response.






















The only fear we all should have bout the supreme power of the NRA is fear itself. The power they have is fear itself. NRA whisper of insurrection makes them domestic terrorists that I do not think is greater than the power if the United states.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 08:48 AM

Confederate Flag Hung From Boston Memorial
By Niko Emack-Bazelais and Jennifer Smith, Boston Globe Correspondents June 29, 2015

A Confederate battle flag was attached Sunday night to a Boston memorial that commemorates one of the first all-black regiments to fight for the union during the Civil War, hanging there for over an hour before a woman removed it.

Melissa Carino, 37, of Lowell said she saw the flag hanging from the Robert Gould Shaw and Massachusetts 54th Regiment Memorial across the street from the State House at about 8 p.m. Carino said she left and returned to the location later, angered that it had not been removed.

The 54th Regiment was commissioned by Governor John A. Andrew shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the inspiration for the 1989 movie "Glory.''

Late Sunday night, the flag appeared ripped and torn from attempts to remove it. But it remained tied to the monument until 10:30 p.m., when Carino finally untied it and took it down, placing it in a trash can. "It makes me angry to have to do this in my own town," she said. "I was like, really? Is that for real?"

The memorial has a history of vandalism. It was splashed with paint in 2012, and a man was arrested for trying to remove a sword from the statue in April 2015.

Passersby expressed displeasure at what they called a racially motivated act, with some citing the outrage over the controversial flag after the murder of black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., earlier this month.

"Such an expression of hate is not acceptable," said Dara Poulten, 34, of Medway.

"Obviously it's pretty upsetting to see," said Jonathan Krieger, 29, of Jamaica Plain. "When somebody puts something in a spot like that, obviously they are trying to send a message, and it's an upsetting message.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 03:40 PM

Klan flyers litter Oklahoma lawns 3 days after Charleston ...
http://www.bdtonline.com/news/klan-flyers-litter-oklahoma-lawns-days-after-charleston-massacre/article_323758d4-195a-11e5-8aae-033295f5722b.html

Topeka Residents find KKK flyers on lawns
http://cjonline.com/news/2015-06-15/topeka-residents-receive-message-ku-klux-klan#

Whittier CA neighborhood receives KKK flyers
http://abc7.com/news/whittier-neighborhood-receives-possible-kkk-flyers-on-lawns/812349/

Fullerton neighborhoods find KKK fliers with candy on their lawns
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fullerton-kkk-flyers-20150623-story.html

Uproar caused after KKK flyers dropped on Atlanta lawns
http://www.cbs46.com/story/29391030/kkk-fliers-distributed-in-local-community-cause-uproar#ixzz3eO5A4mnG

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 10:28 PM

Not enough information at this point, Bruce, to know. It seems it has been determined the fire was the result of arson. No assumptions being made at this time regarding motive, given the lack of evidence beyond that it was arson, and therefore no possibilities being filtered out.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 05:36 PM

To kill anyone is wrong,to argue over names is of no importance in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 04:20 PM

I reckon it might be, Bruce - if someone claims responsibility for it and declares themself to be carrying out an ideologically or politically or religiously motivated attack. Don't forget though, growing up in the Uk in the 70s, I heard the word 'terrorism' on the news all too frequently - this might have knocked my understanding of the word right out of kilter!

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Jun 15 - 02:20 PM

http://nypost.com/2015/06/25/fire-at-african-american-church-in-north-carolina-ruled-as-arson/

Is this 'terrorism' too?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 11:26 AM

Here is one of the only possible ways to address the issue:(the other is also mentioned)

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

...but it would require a far different legislative makeup than currently exists.... as would the other method.

When enough people go through the process of adjusting their thinking and electing sensible legislators who are not in the pockets of the NRA, we MIGHT get some action.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 09:32 AM

The answer to the 'difficulties' with gun ownership is quite plain. It's the second amendment to the Bill of Rights, so allow, nay, insist that every home have a single-shot long gun. That would fill the requirement of the amendment and make the NRA happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 08:07 AM

Tally of Attacks in U.S. Challenges Perceptions of Top Terror Threat
By SCOTT SHANE      JUNE 24, 2015

WASHINGTON — In the 14 years since Al Qaeda carried out attacks on New York and the Pentagon, extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States, explaining their motives in online manifestoes or social media rants.

But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.

The slaying of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church last week, with an avowed white supremacist charged with their murders, was a particularly savage case. But it is only the latest in a string of lethal attacks by people espousing racial hatred, hostility to government and theories such as those of the "sovereign citizen" movement, which denies the legitimacy of most statutory law. The assaults have taken the lives of police officers, members of racial or religious minorities and random civilians.

Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants have taken place in the same period.

If such numbers are new to the public, they are familiar to police officers. A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff's departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed "Al Qaeda-inspired" violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University.

Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 03:57 AM

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Well stop it.

It causes whole threads to disappear.

I notice yet another air of "it's too difficult to alter gun laws or culture in The USA" and "you obviously don't understand how things work over here."

Ironically true on both counts but not for the reasons given.

Keep banging the rocks together eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 15 - 02:34 AM

Did anyone else catch the Senate speech of Senator Paul Thurmond, the son of the infamous Strom Thurmond? Moving, and quite remarkable, considering his family history.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 09:51 PM

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122110/i-dont-want-be-excuse-racist-violence-charleston

Hope the article will copy as I know the link won't stay hot.

By Chloe Angyal (June 22, 2015. New Republic)

We cannot talk about the violence that Dylann Roof perpetrated at Emanuel AME last Wednesday night without talking about whiteness, and specifically, about white womanhood and its role in racist violence. We have to talk about those things, because Roof himself did. Per a witness account, we know that he said: "You rape our women and you're taking over our country." "Our" women, by whom he meant white women.

There is a centuries-old notion that white men must defend, with lethal violence at times, the sexual purity of white women from allegedly predatory black men. And, as we saw yet again after this shooting, it is not merely a relic of America's hideous racial past. American racism is always gendered; racism and sexism are mutually dependent, and cannot be unstitched.

As Jessie Daniels writes at Racism Review, white womanhood has been and remains essential to the logic of American white supremacy. In anti-black racism, and particularly in the south, the defense of white womanhood was, in the recent past, used as a justification for the most horrific violence against black people, and particularly black men. Daniels quotes Photography on the Color Line, Shawn Michelle Smith's book about photographs of public lynchings, in which the 1935 lynching of a black Fort Lauderdale man named Rubin Stacy is described. Stacy, described as "a homeless tenant farmer," approached the home of a white woman named Marion Jones to ask her for food.

"On seeing Stacy," Smith writes, "Jones screamed. Stacy was then arrested, and as six deputies were transporting him to a Miami jail, a mob of over one hundred masked men seized and murdered him. Finally, Stacy's corpse was hung in sight of Jones' home." Stacy, Daniels argues, was murdered because he supposedly represented a threat to the sexual purity of a white woman, a perception that also depends on the centuries-old belief that black men are more sexually powerful, and more sexually predatory, than white men. And white men were all too ready to enact that racist violence in the name of protecting Jones's fragile and immensely valuable white womanhood. "All an individual white woman like Marion Jones had to do to activate the network of white fathers, brothers, uncles and cousins who would come to her 'defense' and murder a black man who was asking for help was scream," Daniels writes.
ADVERTISEMENT

That lynching happened in 1935. If you have a parent or grandparent who is 80 or older, it happened in his or her lifetime. Daniels notes that contemporary examples of the defense of white womanhood look horribly similar to the murder of Rubin Stacy. She points to the 2013 shooting of Jonathan Ferrell in Charlotte, North Carolina as an example. After crashing his car, Ferrell extricated himself, and knocked on the door of the first house he came upon, to ask for help—as any of us might do in such a situation. "A white woman, thinking it was her husband knocking, answered," Daniels writes. "When she saw Ferrell she shut the door, hit her alarm and called the police. Ferrell, who was unarmed, was shot ten times by a Charlotte police officer."

There is an important distinction between white women, a people, and the concept of white womanhood—one that holds that a white woman is the best thing you can be in America after a white man, and that it is the responsibility of white men to protect your virtue at any and all costs. This white supremacist and benevolently sexist ideology depends both on the subjugation of white women by white men, and on the subjugation of all people who are not white—by white people (including white women).



It isn't just black Americans who are policed by this dual invocation of racism and sexism, and by the holding up of white womanhood as a paragon of purity. When Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency last week, he dredged up a common fear about immigrants crossing the border from Mexico: "They're rapists." To protect the women of America—the white ones, because when we say "women," we usually, by default, mean "white women"—we must practice this exclusion on the basis of race, Trump implied. This highly selective concern about preventing sexual violence is dependent on the peril of white women; Trump failed to mention that 80 percent of girls and women crossing that border are raped as they make the journey. Those girls and women aren't white. Gender is always raced, and race is always gendered.

That said, the distinction between women and womanhood should not let individual white women off the hook for how we benefit from and participate in racism. That we are victims of sexism does not erase our culpability in American racism. If anything, the powerlessness we feel as a result of sexism too often urges us to hold on to, and exert over others, what remaining power we have. For white women, that means the power gifted to us by the color of our skin. Few white women resisted lynching in the early 20th century. A gendered and raced pedestal isn't always comfortable to stand on, but it comes with a lot of perks and not a small amount of power. When contemporary black feminists critique white feminists for failing to recognize, interrogate, and cede their own racial privilege, that complaint is rooted in history. The bonds of sisterhood can be strong, but too often, they have been weakened by some sisters' willingness to continue benefitting from whiteness (or worse, their stubborn refusal to recognize that they do). While white women are people and white womanhood is an idea, it's an idea that white women reinforce.

It was, and remains, necessary for white women to decry the violence that is done in our name. It is on us to dismantle racism with just as much commitment as we dismantle sexism, for one cannot happen without the other.



This is also not to say that we should make this horrific event all about white women, or all about white womanhood. It's not. So often, the defense of white womanhood against black men results in violence against black women, and this time is no different. Six black women were shot dead in Charleston this week because of the centuries-old and still going strong perception that white women are in peril from black men. The reality is that rape, like most violent crime, is more likely to be intraracial than interracial. If we're genuinely concerned about a sexual threat posed by black men, we should be focusing our energies on the safety of black women. A five-year-old girl is alive because she played dead, and, as Dr. Kali Nicole Gross wrote in Jet last week, "that the girl had the presence of mind to play dead among the bodies of likely family and friends, perhaps more than anything else speaks to the perils of being Black in America and the violence that Black people, especially Black women and girls face daily." Six black women—Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Cynthia Hurd, Myra Thompson, Ethel Lee Lance, Rev. Depayne Middleton-Doctor, and Susie Jackson—are dead because Roof claimed to want to protect white women. White womanhood might be an abstract idea; the murder of black people is not.

In this raced and gendered hierarchy, black women continue to be the least valuable, the lowest rung on the ladder. As Rebecca Carroll argued last week in The Guardian, those women were shot because the belief that white women must be protected at all costs depends on the belief that black women aren't truly women, that they're barely people. That they're disposable. Racism is always gendered, and gender always raced.

What Roof did on Wednesday was the latest in the long line of acts of violence against black churches; of American mass shootings by white men with guns; of anti-black terrorism designed to make black Americans and their families and friends live in perpetual fear. What was perpetrated at Emanuel AME was all those things.

It was also the latest in an unbearably long line of lethality meted out in the name of white womanhood—in my name, and maybe in yours. In the name of my purity and virtue and perfect femininity. We must not ignore the role of white womanhood in this act of white supremacist violence, or in any other. We must not find a way, yet again, of avoiding talking about whiteness. And until white women decide that we will no longer be used as an excuse for violence, until we decide that we will no longer tacitly condone and benefit from the violence, we will continue to have blood on our pale, "perfect" hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 08:52 PM

No, I'm not an expert in US constitutional law, but I did lecture at two different universities in England on English constitutional law.

On a natural reading, the wording on the second amendment (at least the version without the manifestly incorrect punctuation) uses the requirement of the need for a well regulated militia as the foundation for the restriction on the latter part of the amendment, forbidding the infringment of the right to keep and bear arms.

Secondly, the amendment leaves wholly untouched the question of exactly what that right is. It also leaves untouched what the meaning of the word "arms" is. Those, I think are two big reasons why the Stevens opinion is to be preferred to the Scalia version (without the need to return to the problem that Scalia is a dickhead).

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:12 PM

Would you have denied eighteenth-century people, many of them living on the frontier, the right to own firearms...

In case its escaped your notice, it's been a while since the 18th C.

but eighteenth-century reality makes it unreasonable to insist that it restricted firearm ownership solely to members of state militias

Eighteenth century reality required ALL able-bodied men to turn out for militia duty when summoned. That's no longer pertains since, as you say, the Militia duties have been subsumed by the National Guard. I have no problem with gardsmen having firearms.

Eightenth century reality also made women the property of their husbands and they HAD no rights - to own a firearm or otherwise.They did not/could not serve in the militia.

So I suppose, taking 18th C. reality into account & with your interpretation, currently U.S. women have no right to own or possess firearms.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:03 PM

I can't immediately see the relevance of your reference to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Easy one! Happiness is a warm gun! Bang, Bang; Shoot Shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 06:10 PM

> Scalia's views on arms cannot long survive.

There is no way to know this.

Wikipedia gives an extensive and seemingly reliable summary under "District of Columbia v. Heller." There is more under "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The Bill of Rights elaborates the fundamental insistence on unalienable rights (which, of course, appears not in the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence. Apologies for that slip.) All rights guaranteed in the bill are unquestionably conducive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as understood by the Founders.

Would you have denied eighteenth-century people, many of them living on the frontier, the right to own firearms for hunting and protection regardless of the "militia" clause?

If you question that line of reasoning, please indicate what makes it implausible. Clearly the militia clause is relevant to the entire one-sentence Amendment, but eighteenth-century reality makes it unreasonable to insist that it restricted firearm ownership solely to members of state militias (which now make up the National Guard - certainly a well-regulated organization).

Supreme Court opinions may certainly be overturned, but it does not happen often. And, as you know, it would have to be in the context of a specific case. No attorneys, apparently, have ever been able to formulate a case that would result in any fundamental changes to the current interpretation of the Amendment.

Of course, this isn't the place for a detailed legal discussion, particularly since neither of us, so far as I know, is an expert in US Constitutional law.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 05:24 PM

PS- if you mean "Heller" - I have expressed my views of Scalia elsewhere, and I'll take Stevens over Scalia any day of the year... Scalia's views on arms cannot long survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 05:12 PM

Lighter, I should appreciate a case citation. I have seen my interpretation argued before and would have expected such a citation to have been mentioned then. I can't immediately see the relevance of your reference to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so perhaps you would at the same time clarify your relevant purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 02:57 PM

"His manifesto is completely explicit about his cause."
You've obviously followed it far more closely than I have Jack - I bow to your superior knowledge
I just wanted to make sure the real lesson was not missed or avoided - unless them upstairs do something about gun control, this sort of thing will reoccur with grim regularity.
! would suggest that, if people seriously feel that guns are a necessity, the industry should be owned by the state, thereby removing the profit motive from gun sales and putting their manufacture passing their responsibility into the hands of somebody (allegedly!!) answerable.
It seems obscene that profit should play any part in such a lethal industry.
All a little too much like 'Communism' for our cousins across the pond, I suppose!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 02:18 PM

He was described as "a recluse", which seems to indicate he wasn't part of any organised plot.

He was the sort of foot soldier certain organizations like to inspire so they can use and disavow them. White supremacism is certainly organized in the US.

There was no organized logistical backup for most of the classic 19th century terrorists either. Gavrilo Princip, with a serious political movement helping him out, was not a typical assassin.

A "terrorist" seems to describe a fanatic ready to kill and die for a cause - don't think there's too much evidence of that to date.

His manifesto is completely explicit about his cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 01:45 PM

Lighter, 8:06 am: ..."it would be no easier for the government to confiscate many existing bullets..."

Note that I never suggested confiscating existing bullets. I proposed not allowing more to be manufactured.

There would/will still be many bullets out there- until they are all gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 01:14 PM

"A terrorist indeed. Particularly since he explicitly stated his intention to start a race war."
I really don't think it is as simple as that L
He was described as "a recluse", which seems to indicate he wasn't part of any organised plot.
He was certainly a racist, but finds have described him as having "issues" over a girl at the local school.
A "terrorist" seems to describe a fanatic ready to kill and die for a cause - don't think there's too much evidence of that to date.
Describing him as such appears to let a society off the hookk for allowing such an unstable individual own guns - his parents share the blame in buying them for him (as a birthday present).
Gun ownership and accessibility are the issues here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 01:12 PM

"... he explicitly stated his intention to start a race war."

And because in 300,000,000 people there are many hate-filled people, unstable people, and sadly, stupid people in both categories, the easy access to weapons WILL ensure horrible incidents keep happening- perhaps not 'quite' this jaw-dropping or with exactly the same reasoning, but with similar pain, frustration and effects for victims. There is even some evidence that the wide publicity by so many 'news' outlets gives rise to copycat incidents - even as it encourages the sane to do something.,,, and unfortunately, mourning and vigils and fist-shaking are about all that many can deal with.

I am not sure what it would take to get a majority to vote for legislators who will pass relevant laws to make real change.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 12:51 PM

Thank you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 12:37 PM

A terrorist indeed. Particularly since he explicitly stated his intention to start a race war.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 12:01 PM

Spleen Cringe, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to describe Roof's behaviour as designed to achieve a political objective, at least in his own mind. This would satisfy the second definition. I have no hesitation in describing him as a terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 11:09 AM

> No, Lighter, the idea was that a competent and effective militia could be assembled to act against a foreign government.

The U.S. Supreme Court definitively decided otherwise just a few years ago. The majority reasoning was that the "militia" phrase was non-restrictive.

The reasoning: while national defense requires the existence of a "well-regulated militia," that specific necessity did not logically or by statute prohibit gun ownership by the rest of "the people" as well.

Besides, a "well-regulated militia" would certainly come in handy in case of an actual attempt against the elected government by disgruntled Tories or other rebels.

A further nuance: the Constitution speaks of God-given "unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The original document did not go into any greater detail. The Bill of Rights was formulated to spell out precisely what the most significant of those unalienable rights were. However one might feel about it two centuries later, private gun ownership for the purposes of hunting and defense was regarded as one of those God-given rights.

Of course you're right about "shock and awe." But many gun owners would call that a defeatist attitude, because the bad guys might think twice about a D Day landing on our shores with 300,000,000 guns available.

Reason only takes you so far with some things.

?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 11:08 AM

Yes, You're a Racist -- And a Traitor
John E. Price
Posted: 06/23/2015 7:14 am EDT


While I was out jogging this morning, I passed a neighbor's house that I have passed every day for almost three years. Usually I stroll right on by without giving it a second thought. Today, though... today was different. I stopped in my tracks and blankly stared until a car honked at me to move out of the way.

This house flies a Confederate flag.

I don't live in South Carolina or even Maryland. I live in a small town in Central Pennsylvania, 50 miles north of Gettysburg -- the site of the most famous victory of the Civil War. Yet even here, a few hundred feet from my front door flies the unambiguous symbol of hatred, racism and treason.

Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 09:47 AM

#, when you consider the dictionary definitions of terrorism, Roof's act could be described as terrorism in line with the first definition, but not the second or third:

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.

2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.

3. A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region.

Having said that, I guess terrorism is usually used to describe the premeditated acts of a group with a particular set of aims in mind. However, was Christopher McVeigh a terrorist? Was the Unabomber? Was the Shoebomber? They all worked alone to create terror, so if they were, I suspect Roof is. My own use of the term earlier in the thread was deliberate, but I but I think racist murderer would do just as well, if not better. Whatever, you call him, the murders were clearly planned for maximum impact and media attention.

I'm genuinely interested in why you're uncomfortable with the use of the term in this context. Is it about how it's been captured by the warriors on terror as their word? Frog, I get what you mean by the term almost dignify in his stupid act.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 09:43 AM

Would anyone care to take a shot, uh stab, have a go at enlightening me as to how the shootings qualify as terrorism?

Because it was motivated by an explicit political programme implying a strategy of random violence against an ideologically defined target group. The term was coined to describe 19th century attacks against the Russian and French bourgeoisie which had exactly the same characteristic features.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 08:40 AM

Guest#, I've struggled some with that, too. Roof did include in his gibberish an intention to trigger a race war. That could imply driving the black populace to take up arms and get themselves killed off by the overwhelming majority. So what you would have would be a murderous act intended to serve his great and noble cause. I don't know but what that is reaching very hard for the definition; to me terrorism is by connotation if not definition enacted as policy by some organisation. So far as the race war concept, Roof is just an ineffectual fool; I feel the title of terrorist almost dignifies him inappropriately .

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 08:33 AM

PPS - and even in 1793 (the whisky tax rebellion) when there was a much closer parity of firepower, the US army won hands down.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 08:32 AM

PS - and in the days after "Shock and awe" any suggestion that the gun nuts could see off an all out war by the US or any other reasonably modern government is laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 08:31 AM

No, Lighter, the idea was that a competent and effective militia could be assembled to act against a foreign government.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 08:06 AM

> No one could claim that a government had taken away their guns.

That's exactly what they claim whenever this is suggested.

Because the Second Amendment isn't about guns and bullets. It's about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

There is no question that the Founding Fathers intended that to include bullets.

Because (as you say) without ammo, guns are useless.

It would be interesting to know if the Amendment also covers laser weapons and Saturnian blaster rays, but I imagine we'll find out.

(It may well be found to do so. The idea was that people need to defend themselves, and if lasers and blasters were in existence, the people would presumably need to be similarly armed.)

There was a rumor round here after Newtown that Obama was getting ready to confiscate all guns. People went out and bought more while they could, and more bullets. This seems to have resulted in a temporary shortage of bullets in local stores.

That led to the secondary rumor that "The Government's buying up all the bullets straight from the factory to get around the Second Amendment."

The result was that more people bought even more guns, and far more bullets on back order, hoping against hope that the shipments would come through before liberal tyranny could fully kick in.

As far as I know, all the back orders were filled promptly.

So the net result of just *talking about* this proposal was more folks with more guns and more bullets.

Anyway, it would be no easier for the government to confiscate many existing bullets than it would be seize existing firearms. And with enough bullets around right now to load 300,000,000 guns, even an outright manufacturing ban, without confiscation, would solve nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:50 AM

I don't want to derail this thread, but I have a hard time understanding how this event is terrorism. I have never come to accept the catch-phrase 'war on terror' because I felt it misidentified the problem. Kind of like a war on a concept that hadn't been clearly defined. Perhaps if GW Idiot had called it a war on terrorism I be seeing things more clearly now. Would anyone care to take a shot, uh stab, have a go at enlightening me as to how the shootings qualify as terrorism?

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 07:28 AM

To repeat what I posted on the 20th, even with such a nasty round as the RIP you still have to make the first accurate hit.
The assailant will almost certain have his weapon ready to use,the victim has to produce his,release the safety and cock his gun, the criminal is not going to wait until the contest is equal,he is the likely winner.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 06:51 AM

Part of the problem with guns is that they make it too convenient and easy to kill people, and bullets are becoming devastating. Check this design.

http://mic.com/articles/80211/a-new-bullet-has-been-invented-this-is-what-it-looks-like

The bullets demonstrated are for a 9mm, which means they will work in handguns carried by police and border security, etc. Gives new meaning to reach out and touch someone. Good I suppose against multiple attackers, but if you can't shoot worth a damn to begin with . . .

Just wanted to brighten everyone's day.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 06:24 AM

I'm probably simplifying things a lot here, but I agree with Spleen that a person doesn't necessarily need to be 'mad' to think ugly hateful thoughts or to do violent or indeed murderous things.

Take the guns away and the shock factor (I'm sorry to put it like that) of mass killing is removed.

However the person in question would still be the same. Instead of being someone who shot numerous people, he'd be someone who beat up a lone black person in a darkened ally, or maybe at best attacked an individual black person with a knife.

No more or less nasty or racist, no more or less mad, just without the power that guns have to enable nasty, hateful, violent people to inflict such huge damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 06:16 AM

Yeh, I agree I misused the word. Realized that after I posted.

But you get my drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 05:34 AM

I agree. Best keep the word martyr for someone who decides to die for a cause even though they could opt out.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 03:02 AM

I'm with a lot of that.

Only, there are no martyrs. Just people in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong skin.

Seeing victims of hate as dying for some freedom or belief etc tends to give second hand credence to the perpetrator. If The USA ever were to allow their President's wish for a debate on guns, it wouldn't be because of Roof or his victims, it would be because it is about time.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 15 - 02:54 AM

(Thanks, Bruce and Jeri!)

Up yonder, I proposed something that seems workable to me: Banning the manufacture and distribution of bullets and shells. The idea is not original with me but I really wish its feasibility would be discussed.

The way I see it, the manufacture ban would be effective immediately while the distribution ban would be announced to be effective on such and such a date. Gun owners would of course strip the shelves of ammunition immediately but there would be no re-supply possible.

Ammunition would still be available for hunting, sports events and possibly some esoteric activities, but the sales would be strictly regulated with full identification and documentation.

No one could claim that a government had taken away their guns and people could continue to collect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:59 PM

Sea change does happen. Always slowly, and never conclusively.

It is terrible, and not simply terribly tragic that 9 people were murdered because one run-of-the-mill local boy who was probably not actually significantly consciously inculcated in racist propaganda none-the-less committed this awful slaughter, that was made possible only because of the subtle and mostly unacknowledged racism that still permeates our society.   

These nine people who were murdered are clearly and purely martyrs. There is no ambiguity about that. It is hard to say at this point from what is reported how overtly racist Roof is. That is what makes the longstanding embedded racism of our society (and any other society) so apparent that even the governer of SC is calling for the Confederate flag to be removed from the SC capitol grounds to be removed. When the people lead, the leaders will follow. That is what is making at least some Republican presidential candidates publicly acknowledge Roof's murder of these nine souls is an act of terrorism.

Combined with recent coverage of the long-standing indication of institutional racism inherent in the statistical evidence regarding our justice system, this clear act of murder by a young man who was not, at least until recently, rabidly overtly racist, makes clear the strong undercurrent of the effects of both conscious and unconscious racism in our society unambiguously.

Just as with the bombing of that church in Alabama those many years ago, there is no ambiguity possible for a majority of USA citizens, even those with unconscious racial bias. (I submit that it is human nature to have racial, ethnic, tribal bias, and the best each of us can do is to be aware of that within ourselves and continually examine it, but this parenthetical is definitely an aside to this conversation.)

Aggregate statistics definitely point to racial bias with respect to interactions between police and possible offenders, but the individual circumstances of each encounter are often complex enough that it can rarely be said with absolute certainty, that racism was the dominant factor. In this instance, as with assaults on Mosques and Jewish Centers, there is no ambiguity.

Let us not focus on single issues or remedies. Time and information may or may not reveal whether these nine martyrs died because of longstanding overt racism on the part of Roof, or if he was a low functioning, lost kid, unconsciously steeped, as so many of us are, in the racism of our society, who latched onto overt racism as an excuse, in his own inability or lack of skills to think through and own his own "stuff."

There is no real comfort when one loses people we love. No one whose lives are intimately or even very remotely touched by the lives and subsequent taking of those precious lives will likely ever read any of our posts here.

None-the-less, I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of these nine people who died, and whose deaths are clearly related to the racism that continues to exist in all of us in our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 09:34 PM

Thanks, Lighter. I should have known that.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 09:27 PM

Listening to Rachael Maddow. Apparently, the confederate flag was put up there in 1962, during the civil rights movement. Sort of (my own words) an in-your-face affirmation that they wouldn't integrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 09:11 PM

Well, maybe there's hope that we'll finally get rid of that emblem of white supremacy and treason against the government of the United States for once and all.

More power to 'em!

Gunn: Confederate part of state flag 'needs to be removed'
Clay Chandler, The Clarion-Ledger 8:01 p.m. CDT June 22, 2015


Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn said Monday night that the Confederate emblem in the state's official flag has to go.

"We must always remember our past, but that does not mean we must let it define us," Gunn, a Clinton Republican, said in a statement. "As a Christian, I believe our state's flag has become a point of offense that needs to be removed. We need to begin having conversations about changing Mississippi's flag."

It's the first time a Mississippi Republican has publicly called for the removal of the emblem that served as the battle flag flown by the Confederate army during the Civil War. Later, it was adopted by anti-Civil Rights groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:45 PM

Not quite. All she can do is ask the state legislature to take it down.

It will take a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature to have the flag removed.

Stay tuned....

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:25 PM

Gov of SC has just ordered the confederate flag taken down.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 05:23 PM

Remember the calls for tighter gun controls after Newtown?

As a result, a bill that would merely have legislated stricter background checks miraculously got to the Senate.

Where it died. Two and a half years ago.

Since then.... (Cue sound of crickets.)

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 05:12 PM

Hmm! I just read in one of the newsletters I get every morning in my e-mail that Dylann Roof's cousin said that what set him off is that he had the hots for a girl that couldn't see him for dust, but she was dating a black lad. The race of his rival made Roof especially angry.

Dunno what can be done about the gun problem. The genii is out of the bottle. There are so many guns out there that simply outlawing them may not have all that much effect. I doubt that attempting to round them up would be very successful because of the pockets of self-style "Minutemen" and Super-Patriots there are in the country who would simply dig there heels in--or start shooting--if the government were to start such a move. There are such groups of self-appointed militia in Northern Idaho and Eastern Oregon, that I know of, who go out on weekends and hold "military maneuvers," and others scattered around the country. Loonies!!

No easy solutions to the problem....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 01:54 PM

Ebbie: email [e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 01:50 PM

"How do I get hold of Joe O when I can't write him?"

I'll email and message him for you, Eb.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 01:30 PM

Lynching is typically perpetrated by a mob, a group of people.

There is almost always a "group of people" behind the person chosen to pull the trigger, plant the bomb, wield the pickaxe handle, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:34 PM

The above post was by me.

I cleared my cache and cookies- and I've forgotten my Mudcat password!
How do I get hold of Joe O when I can't write him?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:22 PM

Lynching is being conflated with assassination. I should think they are historically quite different.

Lynching is typically perpetrated by a mob, a group of people. Assassination is usually accomplished by individuals even when they are supported by a group of people.

Assassination over the years has been quite common in even 'advanced' countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:09 PM

In lynchings, the town's solid citizens turned out to cheer. It was a public occasion.

In the '60s, investigation of race-based murders in the deep South could be minimal; but even then the killers had to act in secret.

In recent hate killings, however, the town, the state, and the FBI go after the killers, who are almost always apprehended, convicted, and punished.

I hate to tell you this, but that is only because the whole world can now watch you much more closely.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:04 PM

James Byrd was dragged to his death in 1998 in Jasper, Texas. It was lynching-by-dragging in that case.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 12:01 PM

In lynchings, the town's solid citizens turned out to cheer. It was a public occasion.

Certainly not always. Ever heard of the KKK? Plenty of other non-celebratory lynchings as well- the spectacle ones were just more popular entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:58 AM

Lynching? Really? Your ideas are still living in the 1920's and 30's.

Yes, Really, Leeneia.

How about Cleo Wright 1942, Emmett Till 1955, Mack Charles Parker 1959, Goodwin, Schwerner& Cheney 1963, Medgar Evers 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr 1968. These are only the more notorious ones, plenty more right up through the 1960's.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:55 AM

In lynchings, the town's solid citizens turned out to cheer. It was a public occasion.

In the '60s, investigation of race-based murders in the deep South could be minimal; but even then the killers had to act in secret.

In recent hate killings, however, the town, the state, and the FBI go after the killers, who are almost always apprehended, convicted, and punished.

Which brings me back to the point that first-degree murderers don't worry much about the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:26 AM

Lynching? Really? Your ideas are still living in the 1920's and 30's.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:25 AM

"This [shooting] is about people who aren't taught the value of life. "
The only common factor in all these shooting is the ease in which guns may be purchased in the U.S.
The perpetrators come from all sorts of backgrounds, all levels of income groups and educational backgrounds.
"The article was just opinion, written by a couple of English journalists for a British newspaper"
(At the risk of being accused of having "an issue) - so what?
The U.S. has a gun problem it is incapable of solving, mainly because of the economic and political clout of a $ billion industry capable of holding the country in the palm of its hand (pretty much the same as the tobacco industry)
Britain boast a "special relationship" with the U>S. - if that relationship does not include the right to report critically on archaic laws which result in tens of thousands of deaths annually, then it is meaningless.
in 2013, America recieved 69.6 million visitors from abroad- that figure is predicted to continue to rise
One of the most promoted visitor attractions in the U.S. is Disneyland, ye tthe State with the most accelerated rises in gun deaths is Florida - 721 in 2012 and rising rapidly.
If we can't comment on it - perhaps we should boycott the place !!
Ireland has an even greater 'special relationship with the U.S.
Last week, Ireland lost six of its youth to a horrific accident in Berkeley , California - it transpires that two of the major factors to the accidentmt may have been building standards that allowed a balcony to be supported by wooden beams and State laws that don't require hoteliers to put 'maximum number of people' warnings on those balconies.
Do we have a right to comment on it and expect our comments to be taken seriously - too ****** right we do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 11:08 AM

And now, a brief Musical Interlude , dedicated to the late, unlamented Jesse Helms and to the Republican Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 10:32 AM

Not saying we don't need to address racism, only that there's something that runs deeper here. Something that lets people think they have a right to take the lives of those they hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 10:30 AM

Yup, Jeri, takes hatred. Or fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 10:21 AM

You can be racist, a white supremacist, and intolerant (pretty much the same thing), and not kill anyone. It takes something else to go out and shoot people.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 09:43 AM

This [shooting] is about people who aren't taught the value of life.

This shooting is about racism, white supremacy, and intolerance.

Amazing how many people are still willing to give Roof a pass and make excuses for him in the face of conclusive evidence. And THAT shows just how far the U.S. has really come since 1863.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 09:23 AM

> I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren't taught the value of life.

Not the whole explanation, but a good part of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:09 AM

"I don't think it's about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone.

'Cept, of course, for the occasional lynching......

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:06 AM

Uh, Keith, That wasn't addressed to you.I don't think Lighter needs you to run interference for him.

Now, Go 'way, kid - ya bother me.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,07:29 AM
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:56 AM

This [shooting] is about people who aren't taught the value of life Life is not valued very highly in much of the fiction that comes out of the USA (TV, Film, Video game).

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:49 AM

I don't really follow Samuel L. Jackson that much, but for the first time ever, I heard something he said that I actually agree with.

"I don't think it's about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren't taught the value of life."

I'm not going to spend the time to read and agree or disagree with each post on here, all 159 of them. I'm just going to say, first of all, I actually have an account on this site, but anyone who disagrees with anything left here gets a flag on their name and ridiculed, so I'm going to post anonymously.

---

You'd probably be okay. You always post above the line so no one in this crowd would know who you are. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:34 AM

"Jeri, you wrote an excellent post. Good for you!"

I disagree. Heartily.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:29 AM

The USA is too influential in the world for we in the UK to be safe from its attitude to firearms and religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:08 AM

The thing is, it's easy for us in the UK to sit in safety, pontificating about gun culture in the USA and coming up with simplistic solutions for a complex set of problems. We don't have to live in a place where public ownership of guns and the 'right' to bear arms is so deeply ingrained in the psyche and culture that any other way of living seems impossible - and to many, undesirable. I couldn't begin to imagine living somewhere where I believed I had to own a gun to protect my loved ones, where the stock response to gun crime is more guns and where the national debate is skewed by a powerful, wealthy and well organixed pro-gun lobby. From the outside it appears that gun rights pervade all areas of life and those Americans who want to change things are fighting an incredibly difficult battle (and let's be clear, it's their battle, not ours, and sniping from the sidelines from a position unimaginable to most Americans isn't going to help anyone).

My one trip to the States that took me somewhere other than New York was a wonderful experience where I met some great people and visited some beautiful places (it was a five week road trip/camping holiday in the deep South). A few things that stayed with me that shocked me, though, were guns openly for sale in supermarkets; a bumper sticker reading "My wife, yes. My dog, maybe. My gun, never!" and my partner getting threatened with a shotgun when taking photos of rural vistas in the Blue Ridge Mountains by some old boy who objected to her having a camera out.

The point of the anecdote is that though we met a lot of friendly, welcoming people, many of whom we had enough in common with to make spending time in their company a pleasure, this is the one area (aside from the lack of free public health care for all) where the cultural gulf was too wide to fully comprehend. I don't think it's my job to tell Americans what to do with their guns, but on the other hand, I have nothing but admiration for any American who is trying to do something about this situation. It shows immense bravery and tenacity in the face of a huge mountain to climb...

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 11:19 PM

Jeri, you wrote an excellent post. Good for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 09:33 PM

Here ya go.

That'll solve so many problems because the issue here is nine murders in a church and not the usual squabbles between the self-righteous.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 08:58 PM

Nobody on this thread seems to find it odd that this white mass murderer can be peacefully arrested whereas a black man selling illegal cigarettes can be killed by the police arresting him.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 08:32 PM

If you can guarantee the single clean shot, which you can't.

I don't have issues with people who hunt or fish sustainably for food, but I do have issues with people who hunt or fish for sport. There is something seriously mentally wrong with people who do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 07:41 PM

DmG: "I wonder how many need to hunt.
If they want to hunt for sport I would not dress that as need myself."

I am most definitely in favor of effective gun control and I hope that the USA will eventually come to what I consider its senses, but having to hunt is hardly the issue, Dave.

Whenever we eat meat someone had to kill it. That's a given, of course. However, eating meat supplied by commercial enterprises and from commercial operations has problems that capturing wild game usually does not.

I personally do not hunt- never have - but I have many friends who go get their deer, caribou, elk, moose for their year 'round use. A single clean shot is inarguably better in my opinion than the mass slaughter we all condone.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 06:28 PM

In a democracy, the majority gets what it wants. And it wants guns.

Sorry, Lighter. Wrong.

Guess you didn't bother to read the artical noted at 21 Jun 15 - 11:11 AM. Why let mere facts interfere with a good rant?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 06:13 PM

"Do you see the picture more clearly now? "
.,,.
I take this question to be addressed to me, Lighter, as it concluded a response to a quotation from my last post.

More clearly? No -- for I have seen it perfectly clearly all along --

and an astonishingly ugly picture it is too. I wonder any self-respecting family can choose to decorate their home with it & bear to live with it on the wall!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 05:52 PM

Guest (3:49), you obviously haven't "left the Cat"and playing "my favorite atrocity is worse than yours" is senseless. Killed with guns or improvised bombs, murdered outright instilled with fear and forever changed both physically and mentally--it's ALL evil. Each separate individual hell isn't easier to live with than any others.

And it will keep on happening until we at least LOOK for solutions that are based on reality and not political ideology.

Jim and Keith, do you ever consider NOT wrecking threads with your personal issues?

NOT HERE--NOT THIS TIME

I wish you would consider not ruining threads for your own personal turn-on, but that's pointless. Neither of you (nor a tiny number of others) is capable of thinking about the greater good or even whether you make yourselves look completely ballistic.

And GUEST,# is right when it comes to "the crap fed to us by the media" and everything else he said. I can't speak to anywhere else but the USA, but it feels like we're being conditioned to feel hopeless. We have the news-story-du-jour that's hammered 24/7 by networks that aren't, for the most part, about news. Our TV shows are about crime, cops, forensics, inane 'reality shows', or they're re-boots of some semi-successful series, because creativity is (it seems) frowned upon. Just about the best, most honest news we can get is from Jon Stewart, a comedian. Misinformation and complete bullshit is propagated by formerly reliable sources because (I assume) it's more interesting and so gets better ratings than spin-free reporting. And meanwhile, Republicans cut spending on education, food stamps, women's programs, they try to harm voting rights, any attempts to prevent psycos from getting guns, all the progress unions have made, and... oh, there's the whole killing-the-planet thing.

I don't know if the devaluation of life and the popularity of highly reported murder is a cause or an effect, but I think we need to focus on what we can do something about.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:41 PM

> Surely the greatest country in the world can produce someone capable of making it happen.

You would think so. But I don't see anybody who has the nerve or desire to do so. Part of it is cowardice, but part is an awareness of the facts. I have recorded a number of these already. You mistake awareness of what is practically impossible with shoulder-shrugging.

You'll recall that after the Connecticut school massacre, there were resounding cries for significant new gun laws. In the event, no such laws were enacted. What did happen was that gun sales went sky-high because of a rumor that "Obama is going to use the shooting as an excuse [sic] to outlaw gun sales."

Tens of millions of *voters* want guns. And they are determined to keep the guns they have. And criminals and psychopaths of the kind we're discussing don't give two hoots in hell about the law. If no more guns were to be produced, there would still be plenty of illegal guns to be had and plenty of legal guns to be stolen.

There used to be a familiar bumper sticker that said "God, Guts, and Guns Built America." Many people believe this to be literally true, and the that the three ideas are inseparable.

When I was in public grade school in a large,liberal city, long before the era of mass shootings, we were taught that the intention of the Second Amendment was rwofold: to deter foreign invasions, and to thwart and federal turn toward despotism. In the last resort, the people would be armed and could protect themselves.

Besides the perceived need for self (and more usually family and home) defense, the idea that personal firearms will protect our freedoms from a theoretical rogue government or Chinese invasion is taken very seriously - though not quite as seriously as the idea that the government may one day collapse and it will be every man for himself.

So far, I've not heard more than whisper in the media about any new measures in the wake of the Charleston massacre. And that mere whisper came from the President, who acknowledged in almost the same breath that Washington politics have made real gun reform virtually impossible.

In a democracy, the majority gets what it wants. And it wants guns.

When I wrote my representatives in the wake of the Connecticut massacre that we needed tighter gun laws, I got bland, noncommittal form letter from one, a polite refusal from another, and a near blistering rebuff from the third, who said he'd "never lift a finger" to "prevent families from defending themselves."

Do you see the picture more clearly now?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:49 PM

3 people killed by the Boston terrorist with a pressure cooker. He was accused of using "weapons of mass destruction".

9 people killed by the Charleston terrorshit with guns and all the usual suspects are making excuses for him. They might disapprove of his methods, but sure as hell his aims.

Why I left the Cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:22 PM

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it."

W. C. Fields

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:10 PM

What you posted were just opinion...

Gway, kid, ya bother me!

          -W.C. Fields

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:04 PM

Here we go round the mulberry bush . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 02:52 PM

"Very few people need guns... Hunters... "

I wonder how many need to hunt.
If they want to hunt for sport I would not dress that as need myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 02:27 PM

Social media has opened the door for wing-nuts all over the world to espouse philosophies of one sort or other. The copyright on stupidity isn't owned by the US of A alone.

The difference I note over the past few years is how frenetically the pace of events is moving. There are many people posting to this thread who fail to mention or even allude to the scope of the social engineering being done to us all. Austerity placed upon the poor in the UK, the blaming of other races in the US, the singling out of Muslims in Canada, and so many people buying into this crap fed to us by the media. The News is not our friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 02:00 PM

It's not "fairly mainstream", and the rest of that paragraph is complete bullshit, Jack. How long have you actually lived here in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 01:52 PM

I found the full text of his manifesto in a couple of minutes.

There's not a crazy expression in it. And nothing very unfamiliar. He's just extremely committed to an ideology which is fairly mainstream in white America. The only reason there are any African-Americans left alive is that almost all armed-to-the-teeth white bigots are also gutless couch potatoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 01:48 PM

The real reason Americas need guns:
GUN LOBBY FINANCES

GUN INDUSTRY PROFITS

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 12:30 PM

"It does if there are other horses in the barn"

Yes.. excellent point. I will refrain from other metaphors about the obvious need to do something.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 12:30 PM

The law of the land since 1789, with few actual restrictions, is guns for all non-felons.

Only according to a particularly tortuous interpretation drawn from the sentance in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 12:23 PM

'Sounds great, but politically and constitutionally impossible.
The law of the land since 1789...A repeal of the Second Amendment cannot occur without enormous popular pressure.'
.,,.,.

Oh, stop being pathetic & pressurise. "Impossible" & "cannot" are not words to be used to legislators. Remember when universal or female, suffrage "could not" happen; the slave trade" could not" be stopped; the death penalty "could not" be abolished. Whether all these things that "could not" happen, yet lo·&·behold! did after all, all turned out to be improvements, is another question. But what they had in common was that it was so widely believed, and proclaimed, that they couldn't happen -- TILL THEY DID.

Now, for god's sake, get pressuring and bring about all these things that "can't happen", till you have sorted out those bloody intolerable gun laws, which so profoundly disgrace you!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 12:04 PM

"This is the privilege of whiteness: While a terrorist may be white, his violence is never based in his whiteness. "

Read the ENTIRE PARAGRAPH and the one before & the one after it, idiot, and you might begin to have a clue what the author is saying - and its NOT what your extraction of a single sentance seems to say.

Assuming, of course, that you CAN read.....

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 12:00 PM

Yes Greg. If you can trawl up a page that agrees with you, your case is proved.

Amusing, Keith. And sickening - YOU dare talk about "trawling up" with your history of eminent, living, tabloid-writing, available in bookstores, & etc. cut-and-paste bullshit? Go fuck yourself.

What I posted were FACTS to support THE case, not MY case, idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 11:33 AM

From NYTM linked above.

"This is the privilege of whiteness: While a terrorist may be white, his violence is never based in his whiteness. "

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 11:24 AM

Lighter -- for clarity: the 'drugs' refd in that thread to which I was posting 3 yrs ago were not illegals, but prescription meds - 'anti-depressants' was in the thread title. I take your points. Please believe I don't think it would be easy. But there seems to an outsider to be a dreadfully shoulder-shrugging complacency about the situation; and an acceptance of helplessness which seems unworthy of the nation which is the acknowledged world leader in so many ways. You admit that one specific law was broken & "needs tightening" -- and add, a bit helpless-soundingly, "Maybe it will happen".

Maybe? Maybe! Doesn't that sound maybe just a little bit pathetic? Surely the greatest country in the world can produce someone capable of making it happen: and all these other things that, you appear to accept, need doing to stop you all killing one another like there was no tomorrow.

Honest, USA: Don't come over so helpless and hopeless. Not good enough -- Must do better! "Yes we can" needs to be the watchword. Or else stop flaunting yourselves as so great!

Believe me, from a genuine wellwisher who loves the USA, has had some wonderful times there, and had nothing but friendship and kindness from all my American friends and cousins and in-laws ——


≈Michael≈

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 11:23 AM

Yes Greg.
If you can trawl up a page that agrees with you, your case is proved.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 11:22 AM

> Stop production, progressively restriction ownership leading to a ban as in Europe.

Sounds great, but politically and constitutionally impossible.

This is not like Civil Rights, where the necessary laws were largely in place but going unenforced. The law of the land since 1789, with few actual restrictions, is guns for all non-felons.

A repeal of the Second Amendment cannot occur without enormous popular pressure.

There will not be much pressure, because the average voter *is very likely to be a law-abiding gun-owner,* NRA or not.

Think of Prohibition. It required a Constitutional Amendment, which is not an easy thing to get passed. It was enforced by local, state, and the federal government. But it was repealed because enforcement was impossible, and the public was demanding the return of its right to drink as much booze as it wanted.

A buy-back would have a beneficial but very limited effect. People with multiple guns would not be likely to sell all of them. If guns were scarcer, a few gun massacres might be prevented, but they will not go away. And as soon as another one occurred, even fewer guns would be turned in, and the right would trumpet another "bankrupt left-wing policy."

(BTW, in most states if any gun is used or even displayed in the commission of a crime, the penalty is significantly increased. This seems not to have had much effect on criminals' use of guns. The people we're talking about *do not care* about the law. That's why so many of them repeatedly wind up in jail.)

Anyway, every massacre leads to a significant spike in gun sales, as more citizens begin to feel they need a gun for self-defense.

So, yeah, offer a buy-back, and see what happens. And close the damned "private sale" loophole.

Better than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 11:21 AM

NY TIMES   Magazine
White Terrorism Is as Old as America [EXCERPTS]
By BRIT BENNETT    JUNE 19, 2015

My grandmother used to speak of Klansmen riding through Louisiana at night, how she could see their white robes shimmering in the dark, how black people hid in bayous to escape them. Before her time, during Reconstruction, Ku Klux Klan members believed they could scare superstitious black people out of their newly won freedom. They wore terrifying costumes but were not exactly hiding — many former slaves recognized bosses and neighbors under their white sheets. They were haunting in masks, a seen yet unseen terror. In addition to killing and beating black people, they often claimed to be the ghosts of dead Confederate soldiers.

You could argue, of course, that there are no ghosts of the Confederacy, because the Confederacy is not yet dead. The stars and bars live on, proudly emblazoned on T-shirts and license plates; the pre-eminent symbol of slavery, the flag itself, still flies above South Carolina's Capitol. The killing has not stopped either, as shown by the deaths of nine black people in a church in Charleston this week. The suspected gunman, who is white and was charged with nine counts of murder on Friday, is said to have told their Bible-study group: "You rape our women, and you are taking over our country. And you have to go."

Media outlets have been reluctant to classify the Charleston shooting as terrorism, despite how eerily it echoes our country's history of terrorism. American-bred terrorism originated in order to restrict the movement and freedom of newly liberated black Americans who, for the first time, began to gain an element of political power. The Ku Klux Klan Act, which would in part, lawmakers hoped, suppress the Klan through the use of military force, was one of America's first pieces of antiterrorism legislation. When it became federal law in 1871, nine South Carolina counties were placed under martial law, and scores of people were arrested. The Charleston gunman's fears — of black men raping white women, of black people taking over the country — are the same fears that were felt by Klansmen, who used violence and intimidation to control communities of freed blacks.

Even with these parallels, we still hear endless speculation about the Charleston shooter's motives. Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina wrote in a Facebook post that "while we do not yet know all of the details, we do know that we'll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another." Despite reports of the killer declaring his racial hatred before shooting members of the prayer group, his motives are inscrutable. Even after photos surfaced of the suspected shooter wearing a jacket decorated with the flags of Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa and leaning against a car with Confederate-flag plates, tangible proof of his alignment with violent, segregationist ideology, his actions remained supposedly indecipherable. A Seattle Times tweet (now deleted) asked if the gunman was "concentrated evil or a sweet kid," The Wall Street Journal termed him a "loner" and Charleston's mayor called him a "scoundrel," yet the seemingly obvious designations — murderer, thug, terrorist, killer, racist — are nowhere to be found........

The Complete Article is well worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 11:11 AM

I'd like to hear how the problem could be solved. Realistically, of course.

Here Ya Go, Lighter:

11 myths about the future of gun control, debunked after the Charleston shooting

Another 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.


Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 10:22 AM

Stop production, progressively restriction ownership leading to a ban as in Europe, and the government buy them back for more than their value. When only the bad guys have them life will be simpler for body-camera wearing armed law enforcement officers.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 09:07 AM

> DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR DESTRUCTIVE & DYSFUNCTIONAL GUN LAWS.

Fine, but what exactly?

I'd also remind you of the "War on Drugs." Drug laws became draconian in the 1960s. In Texas, for example, you could (and would) get five years in State Prison for being in possession of *one* marijuana cigarette.

Then there was the education campaign: "This Is Your Brain on Drugs": the image of a frying egg.

Now, forty years later, drug use of all kinds is nearly as widespread, and marijuana has even been legalized in two or three states.

For some people, guns are a drug. Tighter laws, while certainly desirable, will not stop all shootings, and they absolutely will not stop massacres by lunatics.

Confiscate the guns? Impossible for both practical and Constitutional reasons.

Collect all the guns? Very few people will turn them in. Why would they? (Nor will *criminals* and the *paranoid* turn them in - exactly the people we're most concerned with.) A law demanding that guns be be turned in would be unconstitutional, and, as some of us have observed over and over again, the Second Amendment will not be repealed (and probably will not be significantly modified) short of a vast sea-change in politics, psychology, and society.

Roof had been charged with felony drug possession. That should have prevented him from buying the gun in a gun store.

It is not clear just where he bought it, but if it was from a private owner, no background check was required.

Now *that* law certainly does need to be tightened. It was absurd from the beginning.

Maybe it will happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 08:15 AM

Oh dear. I got a very positive response to a couple of posts I put up the last time but ∞+ we got on to this topic; that time about how more effective drug protection might solve your probs!

Not wanting too much to blow my own trumpet: but ♬♩here we are again, happy as can be♩ --
,.,.,.,.
Subject: RE: BS: Ban anti-depressant drugs, not guns
From: MGM·Lion - PM
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:00 AM
The either-or nature of the title of this thread sums up what your trouble is over there. You will tie yourself in knots to find any out from the self-evident fact that YOU HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR DESTRUCTIVE & DYSFUNCTIONAL GUN LAWS.
If you don't believe me, just look at all the arguments, from too-many-guns-out-there-already-to-possibly-ever-control
to got-to-have-one-in-case-I-ever-just-happen-to-meet-a-psycho-who-has-one that all the thousands of threads on the topic already are full of

Like here ~~ oh, it isn't the availability of the guns, it's the fact that someone who owns one might just be on meds which encourage him to go out & kill people with it that is the trouble.

So we can leave the gun laws alone & just make sure that nobody can get at the drugs.
Well, that's all right then.

♫Oh when will you ever learn...♫

From: MGM·Lion - PM
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:10 AM
And if you don't believe me, just look again at that table on that other ongoing thread of #s of deaths over a year by gunshot in various nations -- all in one- or two-figures except for the US, which is in the 2000s -- an unspeakable disgrace to your otherwise great and rightly-widely-respected nation...

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:34 AM

Joe, if a "bad guy" had pointed a gun at you, you probably would not be here now. (Which would be our loss.)

And I have to assume that none of the three morons who drew down on you was planning a massacre, or was threatening you for some racist or political reason.

They may have been paranoid, but they were clearly not lusting to kill. Otherwise they'd have shot you. Those moments were rightly terrifying, yes, but not evidence that legal gun owners are generally dangerous. How many times have gun owners *not* aimed a weapon of any sort at you, or even thought of doing so?

And the three didn't shoot at you when you "left them alone."

Or did they?

The point is simply that, while a few are close to the edge, the vast majority of the tens of millions of legal gun owners are normal, law-abiding people. Focusing on their gun ownership in general won't solve the problem of mass shootings.

I'd like to hear how the problem could be solved. Realistically, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 12:45 AM

Lighter says: There are tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.

My experience is that people don't usually buy guns for hunting or for target practice. They buy guns for "protection" - that is, to shoot a person if that person poses a thread to them. I've never had a "bad guy" point a gun at me. I have had "good guys" point guns at me at least three times, and I was not a threat to them on any of those occasions.

I want trained law enforcement officers to make decisions about "protection," not frightened people whose judgment is affected by their fear.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 11:43 PM

"It doesn't help much to shut the barn door after the horse is gone."

It does if there are other horses in the barn.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 11:12 PM

The NRA justifies evil in the name of presumed 'rights'... partly for pure monetary reasons, but also because they have convinced themselves that they 'need' them. Very few need them... hunters, ranchers who protect livestock, and law enforcement.

That kid in S. Carolina didn't need one... but he was legally able to get one because he was not a felon. Now he IS a felon. It doesn't help much to shut the barn door after the horse is gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 08:11 PM

"I said there are more registered GUNS in the UK than there are homosexuals."
And I said there are 3.8 million "out" homosexuals compred to 1.8 millin registered gun owners - thanks to "good, tolerant" people like yourself, we haven't the slightest idea of how many homosexuals there are - twice that number, five times, ten times - we don't know.
THe fact that one individual may own ten guns is immaterial - there are 1.8 million registered gun owners - what on earth is your point and what does it have to do with what I wrote?
I suggest a cold bath might be in order - your latency seems to be getting to you (again)
In the end the "need" to own domestic guns has S.F.A. to do with security and more to do with a predatory market with an access to the ears of politicians - pretty much the same as the international arms industry.
Big business would sell bags of cyanide to schoolkids if they thought there was a market and if they could get away with it - take a peek at the tobacco industry's record of selling cigarettes to children (if they can't do it at home - there's always the 3rd World).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 06:51 PM

We must talk. I keep a stack of notebooks I write passing thoughts in. Here are a couple of those thoughts on this subject.

* It was the best and worst of times for civil rights. a camera still can not capture all the systemic tortures of racism.

* A kid who fails 9th grade twice is not smart enough to go to that particular church and ask for that pastor and do and say what he did. He had help. The worst kind of sick deranged help there is.

1.
You who pray for forgiveness and redemption after suffering another genocide hear me over the sobs. Do not equate forgiveness with violence aimed at black people whose blood soaks and stains the ground of America.

2.
You the silent racist who will not look at or talk about race. You have helped steal every place of safety from every black person. You never raised your voice to even protect a child.

3.
You the violent racist, you have stolen every now and future from people who are a pile of bones a mile high and growing.

4.
You who deny your racism, you have stolen every advantage and privilege from your color afforded you by the institution of racism around you no matter else you have earned for yourself.

5.
You who is fractured by racism whether you know it or not, you can begin to learn.

6.
You the black victim of 1,000 cuts of every kind may never trust a white person. This might punish yourself and them out of pure habit.

7.
You whose eyes are open are the best hope for the blind if they are ever to cross the street.

8.
You may be confused as to what is appropriate. You may simply ask.

9.
You should remember that it takes more than 20 seconds to consciously see anyone beyond your shortcut unconscious stereotypes of questions like friend or foe, competent or not. Quirky artists take even longer to truly see.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 06:10 PM

He hit all the good points I could think of except I think of nukes instead of drones.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:42 PM

Australian comedian Jim Jeffries has a great bit on how insane US gun culture looks to the rest of the world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL8JEEt2RxI

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:47 PM

Lighter,
Apart from the possibility of their guns falling into the hands of criminals those people are less of a worry to me than the doomsday preppers,conspiracy theorists and other extremists who have such assemblies of weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:42 PM

Lighter...latest huge study from ONS.


here

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:29 PM

@ Lighter: And of self-righteous ones (say Tea Partiers, militia members, far-left zealots, etc.),

Well, Lighter, the Hate Map in question may not list self-rghteous Tea Partiers, but is sure as heck lists militias, far-right zealots & "etc." (- eg: lotys of white supemecist groups or KKK groups for example) all toting plenty of firearms.

Such groups and/or members thereof HAVE committed quite a few murders in the past, and in all likliehood will do so in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:26 PM

> 1.5 homosexuals per 100 of the population.

That figure seems to me to be off by a factor of ten or more. Are you sure it's correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:20 PM

> far in excess of the need for simple self protection.

But now you're using logic.

Some people just like to own, look at, display, and handle legal firearms. It's their hobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:17 PM

No Jim, please concentrate.    I said there are more registered GUNS in the UK than there are homosexuals.

3.48 guns per 100 of the population.....1.5 homosexuals per 100 of the population.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derriick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:54 PM

Maybe not the sophisticated that arms that many american settlers had but was it not the law that every able bodied man had to practice archery at one time? Surely the bow men kept their weapons at home and used them to supplement the pot now and then.
Many Americans do not own guns, some on the other hand have an arsenal which rivals the local Sheriff in both numbers and fire power,far in excess of the need for simple self protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:35 PM

Selections from Roof's online manifesto:

http://news.yahoo.com/suspected-killer-dylann-roof-s-racist-manifesto-surfaces-154324556.html

So much for the right-wing claim that it was a hate crime "directed against Christians."

Also of interest:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20150619-first-baptist-dallas-pastor-robert-jeffress-gets-an-f-in-history.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:30 PM

The "Hate Map" is worth consulting, but I see nothing about shootings, much less about self-righteous, politically motivated massacres.

http://www.splcenter.org/hate-map#s=NE

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:24 PM

We had an armed population in Britain as I outlined,

No we did not.
No comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:12 PM

Someting else I find "horrendous." is the fact that
"Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii," they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally:"
FACTS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:03 PM

"Keith thinks that outlawing guns wont stop bad people from having guns."
As crimes in general are not prevented by laws, perhaps we should consider abandoning all laws   
"This shooter didn't have criminal intent "
I should imagine Joe meant that he wasn't killing people in order to carry out a crime - what he did was a criminal act in itself, but his intentions are immaterial anyway - he was obviously 'not the full shilling', nor was he, as far as we know, part of a master plan - he was a hatred-driven, delusional fanatic apparently acting of his own volition - plenty of them about.
Whether he will be tried a a criminal remains to be seen
Incidentally;
"There are more registered guns in circulation in the UK than there is homosexuals."
There are 1.8 million registered gun owners in Britain - it is calculated that there are 3.8 'out' homosexuals - nobody can even guess hw many closeted ones there are.
Your maths are worse than mine.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 02:08 PM

In Britain how much reduction in weapon ownership was obsolescence over the centuries combined with regulation ? US of A - I think you should ban ray-guns now.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 02:07 PM

The fact is that those who own guns legally and are not involved in other crime *rarely* shoot anybody.

Well then, I guess they really don't need them for protection after all, despite what the NRA fear-mongers say.

And of self-righteous ones (say Tea Partiers, militia members, far-left zealots, etc.), the percentage appears to be truly minute.

Oh, well that's OK then, innit? As long as they only kill a "minute percentage".

Alsouggest you take a look at the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Hate Map" so you can revise your estimate of that "minute percentage".

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 02:04 PM

The thought of 300,000,000 second-hand guns flooding onto the world market is horrendous.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 02:01 PM

We had an armed population in Britain as I outlined,as I said the prevalence of arms owned by the general population and the aristocracy
was reduced until we arrived at Britain as it is today.
America has a gun problem even if certain parts of the population are in denial.
As I said to solve the problem they have to start somewhere,a journey has to start with a step in a better direction.
Total removal of firearms will not be achieved,just as it hasn't been achieved in Britain.
I feel much safer in Britain than in the USA where in some states it is easier to buy an assault rifle than a beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:50 PM

> It's the so-called "law-abiding" people with guns, the ones who are convinced of their self-righteousness and their "duty" to protect the rest of us from "bad people."

If that were the case, Joe, these killings would be happening everywhere all the time. There are tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.

Or perhaps I completely misunderstand your point.

The fact is that those who own guns legally and are not involved in other crime *rarely* shoot anybody. And of self-righteous ones (say Tea Partiers, militia members, far-left zealots, etc.), the percentage appears to be truly minute.

How many mass shooters since, say, Columbine in 1999, have acted because of a self-righteous desire to "protect" anyone from "bad people"?

No more than two or three, I think, and even that might be a stretch. Mainly they kill because they want notoriety or because they want to be gunned down themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:39 PM

Keith seems to think it foolhardy to outlaw guns to stop bad people from having guns.

No.
Keith thinks that outlawing guns wont stop bad people from having guns.

My "bad people" includes Roof.
My "good people" does not.

This shooter didn't have criminal intent

He did.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:38 PM

"There are more registered guns in circulation in the UK than there is homosexuals."
Thanks to bigotry generated persecution, we have no idea how many homosexuals there are anywhere
"for gods' sake try to develop a sense of proportion Jim"
Not my "god", but I was making a point that despite the fact that bigotry against homosexuals is centuries older than 18th century gum laws, it was possible to alter the constitution.
Nothing improprtionate about that - to most people, that is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:35 PM

I agree that divesting Americans of their guns would be an impossible task.

What is NOT impossible is to discontinue/outlaw the manufacture of bullets and shells. *Some* people would make their own - and there would soon be a black market for them - but never in the same numbers we have now.

And that would give us time to educate our people.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:32 PM

Derrick, thanks for the history of Britain but USA has an entirely different firearms history.

They have an armed population.
There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, and you can only take them from the good people.

And, like Steve, they do not want to shoot anyone anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:32 PM

> how to keep guns away from those disturbed individuals who would use them like Dylann Roof.

He appears to have obtained the gun legally - even though legally he was forbidden to have one because of a pending felony trial.

So in this case an appropriate law was in place, but somehow bypassed.

In the case of the Connecticut school killings, the gun was legally registered to the murderer's mother. She let him practice with it because she thought it would be good therapy. Then he took it and killed her before he went to the school.

Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield were killed by a deranged fellow veteran who they thought would benefit emotionally from shooting on a firing range.

Gun laws do need to be tightened, but I'm afraid such incidents can never be eliminated. The continual increase in the U.S. population, with the accompanying increase of dangerous individuals, plus the impossibility of making the guns go away, means that something besides tighter laws is needed.

But even a massive publicity campaign like that which turned drunk driving from a joke some thirty years ago into something generally despised will not solve the problem. Drunk driving homicides have gone down because people are more aware that if they drive drunk they're likely to may *themselves* or at least will suffer the scorn of their friends and family, who now have a legal right and obligation to stop them from getting into the car.

Mass killers have no such inhibitions. Most of them want to die anyway, and unless someone is actually waving a firearm, there is no legal way to take them into custody.

Right or wrong, the vast majority of people who own guns want them for self-defense. That means a publicity/education/propaganda campaign like that against drunk driving is unlikely to have much effect. In the *very* long run it might deter a fair number of people from purchasing guns - but those people would, ironically, be the ones least likely to commit serious gun crimes in the first place. And has been said, very few would give their guns up. Part of the reason they own them is for protection "just in case" the Federal Government turns totalitarian or tries to impose martial law.

As long as the guns exist, mass killers will get hold of them. And more are being manufactured every day.

Well, what about outlawing manufacture? Sorry, but that would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. And it wouldn't take away any of the guns that are now available.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:29 PM

Keith A quips, Just legislate, and the bad people will hand over all their guns.

Keith seems to think it foolhardy to outlaw guns to stop bad people from having guns.

Actually, it's oftentimes not the "bad people" with guns who are scary. It's the so-called "law-abiding" people with guns, the ones who are convinced of their self-righteousness and their "duty" to protect the rest of us from "bad people." This shooter didn't have criminal intent - he was righteously going after people he thought to be "bad people."

We have little to fear from "bad people." It's the righteous ones who are far more likely to kill us.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:05 PM

Arm everyone then the bad guys will think twice. Yup :)

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 12:43 PM

There are more registered guns in circulation in the UK than there is homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 12:39 PM

"Same sex marriage"!! :0) for gods' sake try to develop a sense of proportion Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 12:20 PM

Ireland has similar "unfortunate parts' of the constitution, in terms of pregnancy termination and homosexuality
The magnificent result of the referendum on same-sex marriage is evidence enough to prove that, once the barriers are remove and vested interests are brought under control, such problems are easily and painlessly removed.
Mind you, neither of those had a €multi-million industry to deal with - unless, of course, to count the church, but even then....
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 12:11 PM

". . . an unfortunate part of the constitution has conspired to cause the present situation"

I think it is a propitious misreading of the Constitution that has led to the present situation. It has certainly helped the sales of gun manufactures, gun dealers and NRA memberships.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 12:00 PM

You have to start from somewhere or you will never solve the problem.
There was a time in the UK when there was no control of weapons,the Barons and other rich folk had their own private armies and ruled by brute force alone, even challenging and sometimes over throwing Kings.
It took centuries to get to where we are today.There was little no control of firearms even in the early 1900's,shotguns only became heavily regulated less than fifty years ago.
Criminals will disobey the rules which is why they are called criminals,the fact is the UK is relatively free of gun crime even though some criminals use firearms and the general populace is unarmed.
300.000,000 firearms is a tough nut to crack,a situation where a lack of will,large numbers who use your argument that the only solution is even more guns and an unfortunate part of the constitution has conspired to cause the present situation

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 11:51 AM

The "Bad People" argument is also bullshit. Statistics (easily searchable on RESPONSIBLE sites)show serious crime in the U.S. is at an historic low & decreasing.

However, it is in the interest of certain entities, certain political parties, certain lobbyists and certain hate groups to keep the American public constantly scared shitless - be it of terrorists, of Blacks, of Hispanics, of illegal immigrants & etc., etc, etc.

In this they are ably assisted by what passes for the "News"[sic] Media mthese days.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 11:42 AM

"The bad people will ignore any legislation to disarm,"
The greatest pressure to reforms of the gun laws are the organisations, mainly supported by the gun industry - all of whom put forward the "bad people" argument.
Emphasising the "bad people" suggests that having the right to bear arms has any defensive value, when, in fact possessing a gun increases the risk of death in the home rather than reducing it.
Don't suppose statistics are of the slightest interest to you, but there you go.
Despite the overwhelming support for gun reforms in Charleston, the authorities have said that gu reform is not on the cards - the industry and the shooters will continue to win the day until the myth of 'guns for protection' is exploded - doesn't work.
Jim Carroll
   
"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 11:00 AM

Criminals in any country including the UK can access guns,the fact that countries with stricter gun laws have less gun crime and fewer gun deaths even you can't deny.But I'll bet you'll try

I do not deny it.
Of course they do Derrick.
But US has to start from where it is.

History has left them with millions of guns in circulation.
The bad people will ignore any legislation to disarm, and will be delighted if the good folk are disarmed by law.

More free hits for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 10:44 AM

Sadly guns aren't going anywhere. The cat is out of the bag. The horse has left the barn. Any attempts to remove guns from America would just increase sales and drive them underground. Or end up with a REAL civil war. The fanatical gun owners I know are just not going to give them up. Never.

So to me the real question is how to keep guns away from those disturbed individuals who would use them like Dylann Roof did. I wish I had an answer but I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 10:22 AM

"Well Stu, if it was really a cunning plan as you seem to suggest, the guy would not have chosen a church to perpetrate his crime."

Not a lot cunning as far as I can see Ake. The church he chose is symbolic amongst the black community as it is one of the oldest churches in the region and has been target before. He didn't just wander in off the street and start shooting, he carefully chose his target, went and sat there for an hour before starting to kill.

He's stated the fact he did this because he's a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 10:22 AM

Agreed Lighter,
Rather like the Laurel and Hardy saying "That's another fine mess you've got us into"

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 10:04 AM

> countries with stricter gun laws have less gun crime and fewer gun deaths

This is true, but with 300,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States, a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the legality of most of them, and no serious possibility of amending the amendment, it's somewhat beside the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 09:08 AM

Just to help you Keith,
"The flaw in the argument that more guns would prevent such happenings is assuming the innocent people are better shots than the baddies.
The winner in any gun battle is the first person to score an accurate hit."
The above comment is intended to question the argument that more guns are the answer,they are not.
Criminals in any country including the UK can access guns,the fact that countries with stricter gun laws have less gun crime and fewer gun deaths even you can't deny.But I'll bet you'll try

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 08:58 AM

"Just legislate, and the bad people will hand over all their guns."
It's not only "bad" people who kill innocent people - American police seem to have decelerated open season on people of the wrong colour in the U.S.
Last year, a five year old shot one of his parents with the family gun.
The number of guns held is directly relatibve to the number of people killed by them - 32,000 per year in the U.S.
It is philosophy of gun ownership that causes this frightening figure, not necessarily the "badness" of the people involved.   
Until domestic gun ownership is outlawed, this figure will remain constant.
The right to carry arms was established when the U.S was a frontier country - it was brought about in order to take the country from its rightful owners.
Right Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 08:50 AM

And here's "The New South" for ya. I expect S. Carolina will soon be coming out with a new license plate celebrating "Southern Heritage", viz:

SOUTH CAROLINA: BIRTHPLACE OF SECESSION

+++


Outrage vs. Tradition, Wrapped in a High-Flying Flag of Dixie
NEW YORK TIMES
By ALAN BLINDER and MANNY FERNANDEZ
JUNE 19, 2015


CHARLESTON, S.C. — Stunned by the massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, South Carolina has been abruptly forced to confront an issue that has bedeviled it for decades: the Confederate battle flag that flies above the grounds of the State House.

The tension was on display Friday, while the American and South Carolina flags flew at half-staff and the Confederate battle flag remained at the peak of its pole outside the State House in Columbia.

"I think that what we've seen in South Carolina is another act of terrorism, and this act of terrorism reminds us of a history of terrorism enacted against African-American people, particularly in the South," said Russell Moore, a descendant of Confederate veterans who heads the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I think there's momentum now to say we're going to do everything we can to love each other and to work together, and that means getting rid of images of division. I do think the flag will come down."

Supporters of the Confederate battle flag display signaled Friday that their position had not changed. In a commentary on Friday, Michael Hill, the president of the League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed as a hate group, said that the Confederate battle flag should remain at the State House but that the American flag should be removed.

The American flag, Mr. Hill wrote, "now stands for multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity — the left's unholy trinity." In "sharp contrast," he wrote, the Confederate battle flag "stands for the heroic effort our people made 150 years ago to avoid the fate" of contemporary America.


Whole Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 08:45 AM

Anent Brendan's post, above:

NRA executive suggests slain Charleston pastor to blame for gun deaths
Reuters    -   By Lisa Maria Garza       8 hours ago

DALLAS (Reuters) - A National Rifle Association executive in Texas has come under fire for suggesting that a South Carolina lawmaker and pastor slain with eight members of his congregation bears some of the blame for his opposition to permitting concealed handguns in church.

In an online thread about Wednesday night's mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, Cotton said that one of the nine people slain, church pastor and Democratic state Senator Clementa Pinckney, had voted against legislation in 2011 that would have allowed concealed possession of handguns in restaurants, day-care centers and churches.

"Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead," Cotton wrote.

Whole Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 08:43 AM

The way to prevent such events is to make access to make firearms difficult to own for everyone good or bad.

Brilliant Derrick!
Why has no-one ever thought of that before?

Just legislate, and the bad people will hand over all their guns.
Right Derrick?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 08:31 AM

"You see them at work constantly on this forum, silencing threatening and abusing."
Nobody threatens, some abuse - on ll sides of the arguments - including those who use "liberal" as an abusive term.
I suggest that complaints of being threatened are signs of an inability to make ones case and defend the indefensible.
Just heard that there is a move to identify the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate and have it removed from the town.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 08:10 AM

Keith,
When pasting from other posts please include all the comment not the bits you fancy.
The way to prevent such events is to make access to make firearms difficult to own for everyone good or bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:55 AM

"No they don't - if they did they wouldn't be "liberal" - a contradiction in terms.

That is why I put "liberal" in inverted commas Jim, the agenda of the "liberal" media and it's followers is the antithesis of real liberalism.

You see them at work constantly on this forum, silencing threatening and abusing..............tolerance don't make me laugh.

The US members are a hundred times more tolerant, and they are despised by our resident lynch mob.    Chiefly because they dare to have a faith.....sheeesh as they say in the US

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:53 AM

The flaw in the argument that more guns would prevent such happenings

More guns is not a solution, but neither is disarming the good guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:32 AM

"The "liberal" media is in fact very extreme, they promote an extreme agenda."
No they don't - if they did they wouldn't be "liberal" - a contradiction in terms - unlss you have a dictionary the rest of us don't have access to, of course - always a possibility, of course.
Arguments I've had with you in the past have led me to the conclusion that your definition of 'liberal' is anybody who doesn't agree with you or whose lifestyle offends you in one way or another.
All of which gets us nowhere and has nothing to do with the subject in hand - which is why it shouldn't have been introduced in the first place.
Here in the West of Ireland we are blessed with the presence of an American journalist, Mary Ellen Synon (former mistress to the deputy governor of the Bank of England), who wrote regularly for the Irish press until she upset the relly "liberal" minded people of Ireland by describing the Paralympics as "grotesque".
Some years ago she was interviewed on local "Kerry" radio talking about weapon ownership in rural Ireland
She made the astounding statement that is was not only the right, but the duty of all rural dwellers to own a gun
This was around the time when an Irish farmer had executed a Traveller.
The victim, John Ward, was found wandering around a farmyard by the owner, who went in for sis gun, shot him, beat him with a wooden post, then went in, reloaded the gun and executed him as he lay on the ground.
The farmer never denied having done what he did, but he pleaded "fear" as being the excuse
He fully expected to receive a custodial sentence and got his affairs in order in preparation - he was acquitted, probably because his victim was a Traveller
The farmer, the journalist and a legal system that nods through such decisions are three good reasons for not allowing widespread gun ownership as far as I'm concerned.
As for the widespread rural recreational "sport" of 'killing for pleasure' - don't get me started!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:06 AM

The "liberal" media is in fact very extreme, they promote an extreme agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:05 AM

The flaw in the argument that more guns would prevent such happenings is assuming the innocent people are better shots than the baddies.
The winner in any gun battle is the first person to score an accurate hit.
This idea may stem from the old western movies,where the hero in his white stetson was always the faster draw and better shot.
Many american men see themselves as that hero,as it makes them feel a real man.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 06:35 AM

"I was referring to the "liberal media" Jim, they are IMO, are far from "decent"
The "liberal" media is fairly decent - is is the extreme media that promoted the hatred that leads to this sort of tragedy that is the problem - you seem to have an objction tp tolerance and show little of it yourself.
As I said, liberal minded people and the liberal media are outraged at any sort of intolerance that leads to events such as this and it is outrageous that you should claim this is not the case.
The extremist media will attempt to make it a race or cultural issue, leading to further intolerance and further persecution and even killings.
This is a hate crime facilitated by a society with ready access to lethal weapons
Itis about time that the world realised that the desire to own a gun should be an automatic disqualification for doing so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 06:25 AM

Remind me again, why is it that 'disturbed individuals' don't do mass shootings in most other countries ?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 06:22 AM

Brendan, the symptoms of PS are very well known and almost every case contains amazing similarities.

Your snide personal remarks are not helpful.

Just seen a film of the perpetrator on BBC....almost certainly under anti psychotic medication.

Of course this does not excuse such a disgusting criminal act, but to suggest that it is anything other than one disturbed individual, seems over the top.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:51 AM

I was referring to the "liberal media" Jim, they are IMO, are far from "decent"

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:48 AM

Apparently, a member of the NRA has suggested that the pastor of the Charleston church bears responsibility for the deaths because he voted against allowing worshippers to carry guns.

I have been interested to note how a retired roofer with absolutely no medical training is able diagnose schizophrenia based on what he has seen in the media. Why do psychiatrists earn such good money when the job is so easy?

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:24 AM

"They see the church as more of an "enemy" than terrorism."
Why do extremists choose to use the massacre of innocent people to mount their own particular religious hobby horse - pretty distasteful
"Decent" people (liberals) are offended at all taking of human life as are as far removed frm terrorism as you could possibly get - far more removed than religious zealots of any particular brand, it would appear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:11 AM

Steve,
If I had access to a hundred guns I still wouldn't shoot anyone.

So access to guns is not the only issue.
Europeans hunt too, especially Germans and Scandinavians, and the Swiss actually equip their citizens with weapons and ammunition.

It is history that makes US different to "other advanced countries" and you can't change history.

Roof was motivated by racism, which is a kind of insanity, but still responsible for his actions.

A friend said his preferred target was a school.
He may have chosen a church because he thought it less likely he would face another armed person.
I understand that two previous church massacres were prevented by an armed worshipper.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:59 AM

How about leaving creation out of this, Steve. You seem to have a fixation.....

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:27 AM

Well Stu, if it was really a cunning plan as you seem to suggest, the guy would not have chosen a church to perpetrate his crime.

The "liberal" media are highly unlikely to clamber all over this one.
They see the church as more of an "enemy" than terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:13 AM

Amazing the search for excuses happening. The man is a racist and a terrorist intent on inflaming an internal conflict; why are people so unwilling to accept this?

Seems deeply suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 12:45 AM

The Natural News article is derivative at best, it includes no peer review sources about the drug in question, just reporting on the mainstream reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 08:43 PM

http://www.naturalnews.com/050117_Charleston_shooting_Big_Pharma_psych_drugs.html#

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 06:52 PM

If I had access to a hundred guns I still wouldn't shoot anyone. The gun frenzy in the U.S., fuelled by an extremely undemocratic lobby group, the NRA, which cannot be resisted, is symptomatic of the infantile state of US politics, not to speak of a deliberate misreading of the constitution, whose very imperfect text in no way whatsoever entitles its citizens to carry weapons of death in their pockets in peacetime (penned by fellows who all loved their slaves, lest we forget). We see the same feeble subservience to the pro-Israel lobby, who also cannot be resisted. We see the same collapse of democracy in the sanctioning of the teaching of creationist nonsense alongside evolution in schools. I don't think that owning a gun makes you a potential murderer, but the easy availability of guns certainly makes the job easier for lunatics. In a world in which the US is (for now) the major power, I think it's very worrying that it's a country in which such childish and immature - and undemocratic - attitudes are the norm even after two hundred years.

And don't go all defensive on me, yanks, at least not until you've explained George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump and your resident Alaskan hockey mom to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Rumncoke
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 06:48 PM

Why I am being accused of trying to defend what the man did?

His actions are indefensible and anyone who assisted him knowing his mental state should be prosecuted as an accomplice.

If there are many more Americans who have the same delusions then they should be locked away for their own safety and that of the general public.

Telling me I am trying to excuse what he did on the basis of insanity does rather call into question the intelligence behind such an accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 06:03 PM

Charles P Pierce wrote one heckuvan article there, Janie.

Ake, I was saying earlier that all murders have some sort of reasoning behind them. I was also saying that usually the reasoning is only sound in the mind of the killer. I guess I misphrased something if that's the impression I gave you. Old age and aluminium I guess :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 05:48 PM

Yes Stu, I cant deny that what I printed was purely an opinion, just as all other views on this thread are.
Looks very like PS to me.

I don't agree with # this time tho', as some killings are the result of some sort of reasoning.
To evade capture? To inherit money? etc.

This particular massacre seems to have had no reasonable cause, no one thinks that this lunacy will start a "race war"

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 05:37 PM

Agree, Bruce. There have also been a number of other excellent articles, essays and op-eds. Here is one good example. We Need to Talk About This

pdq, Pick your agenda. Exactly.

re the comments regarding insanity. So far, at least, it doesn't appear any of the talking heads or politicians are leaning heavily on that one. We will see if that continues to be the case.

Be that as it may, in the USA, 'insane' is a legal term and has legal definitions, which may vary slightly by State, and is only used with respect to criminal actions, usually involving homicide. The legal term 'insanity' is not at all a synonym for medical criteria or determination of mental illness. Insanity is not a medical definition or concept that is used in the diagnosis and considerations for treatment with respect to mental illness in the medical or mental health fields.

The general public does not understand this distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 01:57 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/jon-stewart-on-charleston-shooting-this-is-a-terrorist-attack-1.3119783

Jon Stewart nails it in one.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 01:26 PM

Too true, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 01:05 PM

In addition to the proliferation of firearms, Stu, the country is awash with hate, and getting worse daily. White supremecist groups, "militias", Bundy-boys, anti-Muslim organizations, Tim McVeigh-type assholes & etc. Take a glance Here

We need to do away with these domestic terrorist groups as well as implement rational controls on firearms.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:43 PM

IF we accept that the killing of another human is the act of an unbalanced mind then any killing is the act of an unhinged person. However, we can see so many holes in that premise they're not worth mentioning.

I suggest instead that we have glorified murder (whatever its 'degree') with terms like terrorism so much that it appears to be a logical endeavor excused by the perpetrators as acts which in and of themselves have a rational origin. We commit murder for king and country, for philosophical notions like religion or nationalism, for our race or ethnic brothers and sisters, and myriad other things that make it ok in the eyes of like-minded individuals and of course ourselves as individuals.

The latest slaughter was made much easier because the murderer had access to a gun. Perhaps he would have used a Molotov cocktail had a gun not been available. But then, maybe that would have been too much trouble and he'd have stayed in his room.

BTW, I agree completely with Stu's posts to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:34 PM

"the guy is severely disturbed, probably Paranoid schizophrenic"

Ake, that is pure speculation and with respect nothing more than an opinion.

What is NOT speculation is Roof said it was a racially motivated crime and he intended to start a civil war. Take the man at his word and accept that until we have something else to go on.

This conflation of mental illness in the media etc with this terrorist sounds rather like an excuse than a statement of genuine insight; useful for a certain section of a society that wants to deny this has anything to do with their particular demographic and is a damning indictment of how race still plays such a huge part in politics in the US.

Even as we discuss this here and now, somewhere in the US are large number of people are going about their daily lives that will be dead this time next year because of any number of gun massacres because the country is awash with guns and seemingly oblivious to the consequences and think those soon-to-be-dead people are a price worth paying for their 'freedom'.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:10 PM

I had a bad nightmare this morning before waking.

in my dream I was in a totally safe setting with my church honeys of all ages. A raffle was going on and I was helping to work the room selling 50/50 tickets and showing door prize items to go in the next raffle to boost those tix. One item I showed was a beat up item, and one dear soul, who I showed it to, pulled her newer, shinier item out of her bag to prove her 'no-thanks' moue.

Why was that a nightmare? Because I was showing a toy handgun in a county loaded with handguns..... and pistol-packin' grannies with ALZHEIMER'S and real guns.

Why am I taking the time to post this from a tiny fone screen? Because this is also my White Privilege post of the day.

And why is this my WP post TODAY? Because the murders in a Black church in SC are not sufficiently understood to be primarily about SYSTEMIC RACISM.

And because if that same raffle scene described above had occurred in that same Black Church Instead of what did happen--- and had police been present-- I have not one doubt that the pistol-packin' grannies at that fundraiser would have been murdered. Like others have been.

Don't believe me yet? I have the names and the stories. Please do ask for them. It may take 260 names before you know what I know, and I can get you started.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: meself
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:06 PM

frogprince has articulated the relationship between the man's racism and his (lack of) mental health simply, effectively, and, I am sure accurately. (Don't let that slow you down, though).

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:03 PM

> could have targeted anyone

But he didn't.

He seems to have driven over 100 miles to Charleston. Then he went directly to the city's most prominent African-American church, sat there for an hour supposedly praying, then shot nine people at close range, explaining to a survivor that he was letting her live to spread the word. He's now told police that his intention was "to start a race war" because he thinks blacks are "raping our women and taking over the government."

Insane? We'll see. But a racist and a mass murderer regardless. Those are just facts.

And what does *his* twisted mind say about Americans and about gun-owners in general? Frankly nothing.

And what do all the mass shootings of the past few years say? Only that the politicians (and, according to polls, the voters) have no real interest in addressing the problem - in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:02 PM

I'd want to hold fire on diagnosing him, especially from an armchair perspective. And his actions appear to be too premeditated and organised to suggest paranoid schizophrenia. Besides, we'd have to assume that all mass murderers are drive by mental illness - I don't particularly hear this bandied around where the perp isn't white. Just sayin'...

The key thing is that whatever his motivation was, this was a horrendous attack. The response of the local community has been incredibly restrained and dignified, and stands in stark contrast with the terrorist's actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:00 PM

So, saying for discussion that the man is profoundly ill: which came first, the jacket with plural racist imagery or the severe mental illness?
(I'm in Gran Canaria, getting what I have on this from this discussion and the always reliable internet)

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 11:49 AM

There are two political factions attempting to protect their ideology on this thread.
.

Seems to me r@c is correct, the guy is severely disturbed, probably Paranoid schizophrenic.....could have targeted anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 11:40 AM

There appears to be no question that this was the act of a profoundly racist person. Can some here not realize that his legal sanity or insanity is an intirely separable question, and that no one is trying to excuse a horrendus mass murder?

I have been acquainted with enough profoundly, virilently (sp?)racist people to plug a lot of sewer lines. Not one of them has gone on a killing apree. Yet. But, in more than a couple of cases, I would seriously fear what would happen if mental illness stipped away normal inhibitions and better judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 11:14 AM

On National Public Radio this morning it was stated that Roof bought the gun himself. The facts of the case appear to be a moving target.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 11:02 AM

Lighter: see post above Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:02 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 10:58 AM

Fox News commentators opine that the guy's real target was Christians:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/fox_and_friends_on_charleston_shooting_it_s_extraordinary_that_they_re_calling.html

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 10:57 AM

Another white Christian terrorist. We've had plenty, but no one calls them that.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 10:43 AM

an insane person cannot be judged by normal Human values ...The actions of the man combined with what he said to explain them would seem to indicate insanity.

He said he had to kill Black folks because they were raping white women and taking over the country.

And still you're trying to excuse him on the basis of insanity.

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 10:39 AM

Roof bought the gun, using false ID or pretense.

Nope. Old Man Roof bought the gun & gave it to sonny boy, thereby circumventng the law that felons can't own/purchase firearms. Thanks Dad!

Hopefully, the father will be charged as an accomplice.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Rumncoke
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 10:32 AM

Insanity is usually accepted as describing a state of being - an insane person cannot be judged by normal Human values, their reasoning is beyond understanding, their behaviour puts them outside that which is acceptable to anyone able to comprehend their actions.

I would accept that there are illnesses such as mania, phobia and paranoia - terms a doctor might use to be specific in an attempt to describe them more accurately for medical rather than legal reasons, which could be more or less severe in their effect.

The actions of the man combined with what he said to explain them would seem to indicate insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 10:18 AM

Roof bought the gun, using false ID or pretense.

Rumncoke, African Methodist Episcopal (AME) churches are traditionally African American churches. In the U.S. south many practicing American Christians of all flavors attend Wednesday night services.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 10:07 AM

"White Supremacists Worried Charleston Shooting Makes Them Look Bad"

Ya can't make this stuff up, folks. That's a headline from the Huffington Post. Remember, you heard it here first.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 09:30 AM

That his father gave him the gun so that he could go hunting.

No-one (or at least no-one with brains) uses a .45 automatic pistol for hunting.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 09:26 AM

Police: Man in custody after disturbance at Richmond church
Updated 8:03 am, Friday, June 19, 2015


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Police say a man has been taken into custody for evaluation after he threatened worshippers at a south Richmond church.

Richmond Police Capt. Chris Gleason told the Richmond Times Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1Su9IVB ) the man was beating on a door at United Nations Church International on Thursday night with a piece of plastic.

A member of the black church told the newspaper the man, who was white, was yelling racial slurs and making threats.

Gleason says a police officer who was working security responded and called for backup. He says the man was taken into custody under an emergency commitment order and will be evaluated at a hospital.

The incident comes a day after authorities say a white gunman opened fire at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, killing nine people in an incident that's being investigated as a hate crime.

___

Information from: Richmond Times-Dispatch, http://www.timesdispatch.com

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 09:01 AM

R&C, is insanity not a continuum rather than an either/or? Some folks are madder than others.

At the the moment we know nothing about the guy's mental state. What we do appear to know is that the murders were racially motivated. And what we also know is that this was an act of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Rumncoke
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 08:47 AM

Absolve? Excuse? Unwarranted assumptions, I assure you.

I would argue that you can't be a little bit insane - you either are or you aren't.

I can't see much hope of an improvement in the situation in the USA if even the president thinks he's living in an advanced country.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 07:09 AM

Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let's be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. US President Obama

It may be hard for some there to believe, but by some measures the USA is not 'advanced' to some of us looking on.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 07:06 AM

I was going to add my two pennorth, but Stu has expressed my thoughts most succinctly. I'donly add that I work with people with severe mental health problems. In the vast majority of cases, they are not the ones doing this sort of thing. It's also weird that the media are not talking about terrorism or radicalisation. Guess we know why not...

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 06:50 AM

He wasn't insane at all, he is a nasty, racist bigot who had the means to kill people easily because he lives in a society that makes it easy to kill those you disagree with. He an (extreme) variation of normal and to pretend he's otherwise to is bury your head in the sand.

This is the price you pay for having lax gun laws, for everyone being able to have them and being able to buy them in WalMart. The insanity of it is plain to see for those of us that live outside the US, but if the Americans believe personal freedom can only be expressed through gun ownership and they're not willing to forgo that for the greater good then that's their business.

If being neck-deep in the gore of innocents won't convince you, then nothing will I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 05:41 AM

The answer is more guns not less. The killings always happen in gun free zones.
Clearly the killings do not happen in gun free zones, as they are done with guns.
What our "guest" means is that they happen where the intended victims are not likely to be carrying guns. But that wouldn't make such a snappy soundbite.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 04:09 AM

Obviously guns are too easily obtained , but even in the UK handguns can be bought from the criminal fraternity relatively easily.

The guy was insane to an extent, according to what I have read.
He also hated either black people or Christians.....one hatred is as bad as another in my book.....
Even some sane civilised people like us, tend to think that people with alternative views should be "eliminated".

It is a sickness of modern society.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 03:51 AM

"The answer is more guns not less. The killings always happen in gun free zones."

.,,.,.

Just to point out that the UK is a gun-free zone. We haven't had any such killings for some years now -- 5 years to be precise; and only three in the last 19 years. Try comparing your statistics with that, Mr Nameless·Guest.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 02:37 AM

So far as the women killed, they were potential parents for those the shooter perceived as horrible threats; I have no idea if that actually was in his sick thinking. And for god'ssake don't take that as trying to excuse this horrible, hateful, tragic mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: LadyJean
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 01:15 AM

I expect we're going to learn that Mr. Roof comes from a community where everybody, or almost everybody, hunts. That his father gave him the gun so that he could go hunting. Sadly, Roof is insane, and he went hunting Black people, instead of deer, ducks or feral pigs. It's happened before.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 15 - 12:30 AM

Wibble wibble!

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Janie
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 11:03 PM

Thank you Bill D.

And thank you, President Obama for articulating so clearly that it is the presence of so many guns, most of them legally owned, that are the most rational explanation for the number of such mass killings, regardless of motivations of the mass killers, in this USA society.

Best way to prevent or reduce mass killings in a civilized society is to reduce the readily available means to engage in mass killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 10:50 PM

Sigh. Shouldn't we have outgrown this crap by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 07:52 PM

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, the country has as few as two gun-related homicides a year.

The Atlantic

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 07:07 PM

And others'grey cells are curiously lacking as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 07:03 PM

"The number of shootings in which a gunman wounds or kills multiple people has increased dramatically in recent years, with the majority of attacks in the last decade occurring at a business or a school, according to an FBI report released Wednesday.
"The study focused on 160 "active shooter incidents" between 2000 and 2013. Those are typically defined as cases in which a gunman in an attack shoots or attempts to shoot people in a populated area.
The goal of the report, which excluded shootings that are gang and drug related, was to compile accurate data about the attacks and to help local police prepare for or respond to similar killings in the http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/us-mass-shootings-risen-sharply-fbi-report
future, federal law enforcement officials said."


I have noted that some people's research skills are curiously lacking.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: pdq
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 06:47 PM

OP sez:


"In the USA there have been over 140 mass shootings this year alone."


A quick check suggests that there have been 31 such shootings since 1999, starting with Columbine, defined as 3 or more lives lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 06:38 PM

So, you absolve racists by saying they're insane? That's just plain insulting to white folks AND persons of color.

Guess we better start building more asylums - going to need room for millions of "insane" people in the U.S.

The church was white - at least the side which I saw in the photographic image was white.

If that's supposed to be a joke, its in damn poor taste.

Perhaps he thought that he was killing lesbians.

Also in damn poor taste. And stupid into the bargain.

Perhaps he's not the one that's insane, there, Rum...

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Rumncoke
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 06:05 PM

The man was pretty obviously insane - at least by my definition of the term. Trying to find the reasoning behind the actions of a lunatic is not going to be very productive.

The church was white - at least the side which I saw in the photographic image was white.

Yes I know - you mean that the people who attended the church are mostly of the type called black, so it is a black church.

It is reported that 'the white guy' said 'you rape our women' but 2/3rd of his victims were women, at least one a grandmother. Perhaps he thought that he was killing lesbians. Who knows, but his actions were not those of a sane person.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: pdq
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:44 PM

The story is about:

      Guns

      Terrorism

      Christian bashing

      Racism

      Mental Health

Pick the one that suits your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:43 PM

Now, cmon, Bill - Roof was given that gun by his dad as a gift! Just shows ya how much he loved his son, and here you go trying to violate the poor guy's 2nd Ammendment rights!

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:39 PM

Do the math... if there are many who hate enough to do these things, and there are millions of guns available... with lax laws about them, there WILL be crimes such as this.

And when generations of people have their egos invested in having guns.. whether they need them or not, the laws will be not be changed easily, and the number of guns will only increase because the firearms industry needs to sell MORE to stay in business. It is a vicious circle with (mostly) innocent people suffering from the viciousness of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:39 PM

The reference to Keith as a response to my original post I do not understand.

Goes with the Fux News story, Brendan. There's a War On Christianity going on, dontcha know? Keith can explain it to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:33 PM

It was a hate crime directed at Black people. The guy was wearing a jacket with two flags on it: one was the Rhodesian flag from the White rule days and the other the apartheid flag from South Africa. My guess--mind you, it's only a guess--is that maybe somewhere along the line he was taught that Black people are the cause of America's problems. One fortunate thing is that he got the feds involved by crossing a state border from South to North Carolina. I don't know if the feds are involved, but if the SC courts try to sweep this one under the rug then nothing would preclude the feds from bringing charges against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:12 PM

That original post was from me - sorry that I forgot I have lost my cookie.
The Fox News item to which Greg F draws attention comes as no surprise. The point that I was making however had nothing to do with motive and everything to do with opportunity.
The reference to Keith as a response to my original post I do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:02 PM

Relax, its nothing to do with racism - even though Roof stated "I have to do it. You rape our women and you're taking over our country."
He was talking about Christians, it seems. Just more persecution. I hadn't realized Keith was an advisor to Fux News, though.



Fox News Twists Itself In Knots To Find An Explanation Other Than Racism For Charleston Shooting
Posted: 06/18/2015 4:51 pm; HuffingtonPost.com
   

Analysts on Fox News floated the theory on Thursday that the shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday night was motivated by religious animosity toward Christians, rather than by racism.

Host Steve Doocy suggested on "Fox & Friends" that religion was the likely motivation for the terrorist attack.

"Extraordinarily, they called it a hate crime," Doocy said in an interview with a pastor Thursday morning. "And some look at it as, well, it's because it was a white guy, apparently, and a black church. But you made a great point just a moment ago about the hostility toward Christians, and it was in a church, so maybe that's what it was about."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/fox-news-charleston-shooting_n_7614126.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Subject: BS: Charleston - dare we talk?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 04:38 PM

Following a mass shooting in Tasmania Australia made radical changes to its gun laws. Since then there have been no more mass shootings in Australia. Following a mass killing in Dunblane around 15 years ago the UK made radical changes to its gun laws; since then there has been one further mass shooting in the UK.
In the USA there have been over 140 mass shootings this year alone. Go figure.