BS: Charleston - dare we talk about it

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.