You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 06:43:41 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Charleston Shooting  (Read 3051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gaggedLouiseTopic starter

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Charleston Shooting
« on: June 19, 2015, 01:30:21 PM »
The Economist on the Charleston shooting, after noting in passing that Jeb Bush cancelled a campaign meeting he had scheduled for the city:

"It is interesting to contemplate how many victims a killing must claim before politicians feel they need to cancel a rally in the area, and what types of victims merit cancellation. Would Mr Bush have cancelled his rally after a gang-related killing? What about a terrorist attack? (For that matter, why are political murders such as the Boston Marathon bombing immediately labelled "terrorism", while the apparently political mass murder in Charleston is not?) Will mass killings someday be unremarkable enough in America that politicians feel comfortable ignoring them entirely?

The regularity of mass killings breeds familiarity. The rhythms of grief and outrage that accompany them become - for those not directly affected by tragedy - ritualised and then blend into the background noise. That normalisation makes it ever less likely that America's political system will groan into action to take steps to reduce their frequency or deadliness. Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard them the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing. This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution."

This reader's comment on another piece on the same site looks very pointed, too:

"At the time the American Constitution was written guns were not easily available - they were expensive and they were bought in general by people who actually needed them, mostly for serious self protection or hunting. And so was ammunition too. Furthermore, at that time no automatic guns, not even revolvers or hand-loaded rifles like the Winchester, did exist.

I bet that if they could predict that guns would become so (relatively) cheap, so powerfull and so sophisticated (able to fire many shots per minute or even per second) as they are nowadays the Founding Father's text on gun rights and possession would very likely have been quite different just to avoid lunatics like this boy being able to commit such massacres."

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2015, 02:13:28 PM »
I saw a posting elsewhere that pointed out something.

Dylann Roof's parents bought him a .45 cal handgun for his 21st birthday in April.  In February, he had been arrested on felony drug charges - the case was still pending at the time of his arrest this week.  Federal law prohibits people with pending felony charges from obtaining firearms.  Any federally licensed gun store would have turned up that felony charge and would have been obligated to deny the sale.

Now, here's where it gets messy.  In South Carolina, 'private gun sales' do not require a background check.  If prosecutors can show that the father knew about Roof’s indictment but gave him the gun anyway - and if that gun was the one used in the massacre, Roof’s father could also face up to 10 years in prison.  (If Dylann owned guns before the felony charge, they would not have been taken away, so if he used a gun that had been purchase before the drug charge, the father would be off the hook.)

Offline Dashenka

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2015, 04:17:03 PM »
Land of the free...

Obviously requires a gun to be free...

No point changing laws if you can't change the people.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2015, 04:21:44 PM »
Land of the free...

Obviously requires a gun to be free...

No point changing laws if you can't change the people.

Guns not required. Many of us just enjoy having the choice as to whether or not we can be armed. :)

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2015, 04:26:00 PM »
I've seen a very strong case made that this sort of thing needs to be said, loudly, everywhere in the wake of the Charleston shooting:

I do not need protection from people of colour. Women, white or otherwise, do not belong to me.

This terrorist did not speak for me when he claimed that his victims were "raping our women". (I would disavow the "taking over our country" line, but it's already not my country in a very literal sense.)

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2015, 04:31:46 PM »
I've seen a very strong case made that this sort of thing needs to be said, loudly, everywhere in the wake of the Charleston shooting:

I do not need protection from people of colour. Women, white or otherwise, do not belong to me.

This terrorist did not speak for me when he claimed that his victims were "raping our women". (I would disavow the "taking over our country" line, but it's already not my country in a very literal sense.)

Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist? Will that affect his trial versus it being a hate crime?

I just hope they at the least give him life with no chance of parole.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2015, 04:34:09 PM »
Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist? Will that affect his trial versus it being a hate crime?

I just hope they at the least give him life with no chance of parole.
Classic definition: When you take violent action to further a political agenda, and aren't a nation-state.
Apparent modern definition: When you do something the state wants to slap down hard, and are brown.

I prefer and use the classic definition.

Offline Haloriel

  • Original Beauty | Alluring Erudite | Perfervid Romanticist
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Ogling your gluteus maximus with a most respectful air, of course. One part devious.
  • Gender: Female
  • Dance with me, darling. I'll show you the stars.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2015, 04:37:26 PM »
Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist? Will that affect his trial versus it being a hate crime?

I just hope they at the least give him life with no chance of parole.

Well, by my personal understanding regarding the technical definition it really was an act of domestic terrorism as well as a hate crime. If such a personage is willing to shoot up a religious building, then they are perhaps likely to have no qualms in making a political stand for their own twisted desires.

Offline Blythe

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2015, 04:37:45 PM »
What is mind-boggling is that South Carolina does not have a hate crime law; most USA states do. :-X

Offline Haloriel

  • Original Beauty | Alluring Erudite | Perfervid Romanticist
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Ogling your gluteus maximus with a most respectful air, of course. One part devious.
  • Gender: Female
  • Dance with me, darling. I'll show you the stars.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2015, 04:39:40 PM »
What is mind-boggling is that South Carolina does not have a hate crime law; most USA states do. :-X

Woah, really?  That's ... yes.  I am not sure what to say to that other than ... catch up, SC?

Offline Dashenka

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2015, 04:42:55 PM »
Guns not required. Many of us just enjoy having the choice as to whether or not we can be armed. :)

I was being sarcastic. :)

Offline Blythe

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2015, 04:44:38 PM »
Woah, really?  That's ... yes.  I am not sure what to say to that other than ... catch up, SC?

Really. Federally, it can still be investigated as a hate crime, but South Carolina itself does not have a hate crime law, along with a small handful of other states.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2015, 04:48:49 PM »
South Carolina flies the Confederate flag by law. I am singularly unsurprised that they have no hate-crimes law.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2015, 04:51:41 PM »
and those people still criticise Russia..  ::)

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2015, 04:54:23 PM »
and those people still criticise Russia..  ::)
Because one place having problems means no other place has any issues whatsoever?

Offline Blythe

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2015, 04:57:53 PM »
Split this into it's own topic, as it's definitely a large hefty topic in its own right. *nodnod*

Offline Dashenka

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2015, 05:00:36 PM »
I've learned not to judge others if I do the same.

But that's not the discussion.

There is a big shooting in the US almost every month with multiple innocent victims. I honestly can't understand why the (allegedly) most influencial nation in the world is doing something about that. Or actually I can, I just don't believe there are still people that support the gun ownership law.


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2015, 05:01:06 PM »
Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist?

When an act is committed for the purpose of inflicting terror on a group or society at large. 

Offline Zakharra

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2015, 05:15:42 PM »
I've learned not to judge others if I do the same.

But that's not the discussion.

There is a big shooting in the US almost every month with multiple innocent victims. I honestly can't understand why the (allegedly) most influencial nation in the world is doing something about that. Or actually I can, I just don't believe there are still people that support the gun ownership law.

 Because the right to won a gun is a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution and we can separate the people who abuse their access to guns from the right to own one. The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that. We are trying very hard not to curtail anymore right based on the actions of a few idiots and morons*.

 * I would prefer to call them something else because using idiot and moron is an insult to idiots and morons. :|

Offline Dashenka

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2015, 05:18:30 PM »
The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that.

So why own a gun, if you're not gonna use it?

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2015, 05:23:02 PM »
Because the right to won a gun is a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution and we can separate the people who abuse their access to guns from the right to own one. The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that. We are trying very hard not to curtail anymore right based on the actions of a few idiots and morons*.

 * I would prefer to call them something else because using idiot and moron is an insult to idiots and morons. :|
The thing is, no system is ever going to be perfect. The failure mode of unrestricted guns is dead people. Also... there are positions between the extremes; for instance, the Charleston shooting could have been prevented if private sales were tracked or monitored in basically any way at all. Saying "we can separate people who abuse their access to guns from their guns" in a thread about someone who shot nine people with a gun he shouldn't have had by Federal law is a bit disingenuous.

While we're at it... "It's a Constitutional right and can never be curtailed (except in this circumstance or this one or this one)" is a bit of a flimsy argument to begin with.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 05:45:13 PM by Ephiral »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2015, 05:40:59 PM »
So why own a gun, if you're not gonna use it?

There are other uses for a gun than shooting people.  Both my grandfather and uncle used to go deer hunting (as was also the case with most gun owners during the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.)  As gaggedLouise posted up-thread, the Founding Fathers had no idea that guns would become as cheap and as capable of mass killing as they are now, compared to the technology of the time.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2015, 05:46:18 PM »
Well that's very simple to fix. Don't classify a rifle as a handgun and ban rifles unless you can show you NEED it. Like my grandparents did. They live in rural northern Russia and they have been granted a license to own a rifle to protect the lifestock from bears and wolves and whatnot.

And it's all good and well that the founding fathers didn't know it back then, they know it now. Why not change it? Because a lot of people still believe it's a right to own a gun and thereby USE the gun when they feel like it.

That's the thing I can't understand.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2015, 06:00:13 PM »
Because the right to won a gun is a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution and we can separate the people who abuse their access to guns from the right to own one. The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that. We are trying very hard not to curtail anymore right based on the actions of a few idiots and morons*.

 * I would prefer to call them something else because using idiot and moron is an insult to idiots and morons. :|

  But the "benefit" of the majority of gun owners not shooting people is a net of 0, so even one death is a net loss. Not to mention even when someone isn't committing murder with their guns there is suicide and accident to consider (plus the chance of someone else disarming you and using your gun against you), as well as the numerous reports on the correlation between domestic violence and murder and gun ownership, as well as the whole attitude that goes with it. When you look at how other western/developed nations handle themselves without guns, it really doesn't seem like a cornerstone of american culture 2nd amendment enthusiasts would have you belief. Or rather it is a corner stone, but not for any good reason.

  Plus the Supreme Courts stance on exactly how to interpret the second amendment has hardly been consistent throughout history.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2015, 06:14:09 PM »
Land of the free...

Obviously requires a gun to be free...

No point changing laws if you can't change the people.
Yes, exactly.

Without the ability to bear arms, the first amendment becomes indefensible if someone really wants to put the screws to it.
Many things can some at the barrel of a gun and the point of spear. Pain, suffering, fear, death, but so to freedom, liberation, and even the defeat of true monsters.

The gun, the missile, and the atomic bomb introduce no new problems, only the necessity to find a solution for a very old one. To paraphrase Albert Einstein. So I agree completely, maybe not in the way you intended, but I agree.