It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
These type of threads are stupid. I come on this site to laugh and enjoy myself. Not hear about something that will be on cable news for the next 2 weeks.
inb4 this thread becomes 10 pages of pointless arguments.
Granite_StateI mean not trying to start a debate here but ponder this question...
If the shooter had been black how would the media have portrayed it?
If the shooter had been Muslim how would the media have portrayed it?
Just curious...
Fox news would be having a field day if the shooter was a muslim. In his facebook profile picture he reps the South African apartheid flag. This was race motivated, no doubt about it. He'll have a fun day in prison
S.J.WFox news would be having a field day if the shooter was a muslim. In his facebook profile picture he reps the South African apartheid flag. This was race motivated, no doubt about it. He'll have a fun day in prison
I think it was racially motivated as well but to do something like this you also have to be extremely mentally ill. There are millions of racists around the world who don't indiscriminately kill black people. Fox News was ragging on the kid bad this morning iirc... They called it a hate crime.
BombogenesisI think it was racially motivated as well but to do something like this you also have to be extremely mentally ill. There are millions of racists around the world who don't indiscriminately kill black people. Fox News was ragging on the kid bad this morning iirc... They called it a hate crime.
I'm more along the lines of say...if he was Muslim I have a strong feeling this would be labeled an act of terror. Who knows though.
It does suck, this kid clearly had some serious mental issues and what he did was unthinkable. I wish the worst on this kid in prison, and anyone who takes innocent lives.
Condolences to the families who lost love ones, this seems to be a growing trend in America and we need a way to combat it.
BombogenesisI think it was racially motivated as well but to do something like this you also have to be extremely mentally ill. There are millions of racists around the world who don't indiscriminately kill black people. Fox News was ragging on the kid bad this morning iirc... They called it a hate crime.
every white male that commits a mass murder is labelled as mentally ill, it's a cop out. Look at when Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. A single gunman, he wasn't labelled mentally ill, he was labelled a deadly muslim terrorist.
Granite_StateI'm more along the lines of say...if he was Muslim I have a strong feeling this would be labeled an act of terror. Who knows though.
It does suck, this kid clearly had some serious mental issues and what he did was unthinkable. I wish the worst on this kid in prison, and anyone who takes innocent lives.
Condolences to the families who lost love ones, this seems to be a growing trend in America and we need a way to combat it.
FWIW this is an act of terrorism for all intents and purposes. I think terrorism and hate crime can go together a lot of the time.
inb4 "if the church members had guns this could've been prevented"
Hate to be that guy, but I mean yea, in this particular situation it would seem that if someone in the church had a gun, they had five opportunities to stop him.
"Sylvia Johnson, who is reportedly a cousin of the reverend killed during last night’s shooting in Charleston, told NBC News that one of the survivors told her the gunman reloaded fives times"
las."if the church members had guns this could've been prevented"
Maybe not prevented, but definitely mitigated. Even someone who hates guns can't deny the fact that the easiest way to stop someone with a gun is with a gun.
CirilloMaybe not prevented, but definitely mitigated. Even someone who hates guns can't deny the fact that the easiest way to stop someone with a gun is with a gun.
or you know just ban guns. No guns=no mass shootings.
madchronicIt's not the guns fault, the dude was bat-shit crazy.
yes and a bat shit crazy person who had a too easy of a time getting his hands on a gun. I'm not about to get into a discussion on the second amendment because it's a dead horse, but there's a reason that this level of mass shootings only happens in America.
S.J.Wthere's a reason that this level of mass shootings only happens in America.
That's so far from true it's ridiculous. AKa you'z wrong
Also to thread, heard we go again. Inb4 a bunch of stuff that I'm not gonna read, and a month or so of this blasting on the news which I'm not going to watch anyway.
CirilloMaybe not prevented, but definitely mitigated. Even someone who hates guns can't deny the fact that the easiest way to stop someone with a gun is with a gun.
it's probably also the easiest way to escalate nothing into something.
i know gun enthusiasts only see the self-interested "guns are the solution to everything" argument, but there's a lot more to it.
i dont care if you carry a revolver around with you at all times, if someone walks up behind you and blows your head off, there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to prevent it. end of story.
same in this situation. unless you're like, armed and staring at the door every second of the day. in which case, yeah you're super prepared!
Anathemait's probably also the easiest way to escalate nothing into something.
i know gun enthusiasts only see the self-interested "guns are the solution to everything" argument, but there's a lot more to it.
i dont care if you carry a revolver around with you at all times, if someone walks up behind you and blows your head off, there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to prevent it. end of story.
same in this situation. unless you're like, armed and staring at the door every second of the day. in which case, yeah you're super prepared!
I never said it's a solution to everything. All I said is it's a fact that the easiest way to stop someone with a gun is with another gun.
S.J.Wor you know just ban guns. No guns=no mass shootings.
The problem lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population of greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the US and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables. In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts illegal killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.
The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more. Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle?
REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% reduction in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than you are conditioned to believe.
In order to FIX these problems, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!
Anathemait's probably also the easiest way to escalate nothing into something.
i know gun enthusiasts only see the self-interested "guns are the solution to everything" argument, but there's a lot more to it.
i dont care if you carry a revolver around with you at all times, if someone walks up behind you and blows your head off, there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to prevent it. end of story.
same in this situation. unless you're like, armed and staring at the door every second of the day. in which case, yeah you're super prepared!
Correct, nothing you can do. But if he comes in shooting and you arent the first to die, you may have a shot at saving lives. Not saying having a gun stops the shooting entirely, but it could limit the amount of deaths.
Granite_StateSorry may have had you confused with someone else I thought you were heavily conservative for some reason my bad
I do act like that sometimes in jest just because it works certain posters on here up pretty good but nah, I'm pretty moderate. I can see the points on both sides with most issues except gay marriage... Pretty one sided on that toward pro gay marriage.
theBearJewCorrect, nothing you can do. But if he comes in shooting and you arent the first to die, you may have a shot at saving lives. Not saying having a gun stops the shooting entirely, but it could limit the amount of deaths.
I'm still not convinced that average Joe who spends a bunch of time at the gun range has it in him/her to shoot another human being. It's easy to say "oh yeah, I'd totally take him out in that situation", but how many people out there are actually going to take the shot? Do you think you're typical church going person mid-prayer is going to turn around and start shooting back? Do we know that said person is going to have a steady hand and is not going to accidentally hit someone himself?
Maybe I'm totally naive, but I feel like aiming at a human target is going shake most gun owners, even if it is in self defence....
theBearJewHate to be that guy, but I mean yea, in this particular situation it would seem that if someone in the church had a gun, they had five opportunities to stop him.
"Sylvia Johnson, who is reportedly a cousin of the reverend killed during last night’s shooting in Charleston, told NBC News that one of the survivors told her the gunman reloaded fives times"
CirilloMaybe not prevented, but definitely mitigated. Even someone who hates guns can't deny the fact that the easiest way to stop someone with a gun is with a gun.
saskskierI'm still not convinced that average Joe who spends a bunch of time at the gun range has it in him/her to shoot another human being. It's easy to say "oh yeah, I'd totally take him out in that situation", but how many people out there are actually going to take the shot? Do you think you're typical church going person mid-prayer is going to turn around and start shooting back? Do we know that said person is going to have a steady hand and is not going to accidentally hit someone himself?
Maybe I'm totally naive, but I feel like aiming at a human target is going shake most gun owners, even if it is in self defence....
The kind of person who is willing to shoot a person in self-defense is the kind of person who carries their gun with them to church.
If I saw innocent people getting shot all around me and I had the power to stop it, you better believe I damn well would.
theBearJewHate to be that guy, but I mean yea, in this particular situation it would seem that if someone in the church had a gun, they had five opportunities to stop him.
"Sylvia Johnson, who is reportedly a cousin of the reverend killed during last night’s shooting in Charleston, told NBC News that one of the survivors told her the gunman reloaded fives times"
CirilloMaybe not prevented, but definitely mitigated. Even someone who hates guns can't deny the fact that the easiest way to stop someone with a gun is with a gun.
The easiest way to stop a shooting is to not have guns.
What's more important: the maintenance of your supposed right to bear arms, or the lives of future innocent mass shooting victims?
Im gonna sound like a dick but am I the only one who doesnt see the US as having a problem with mass shootings? I mean yeah, one shooting is too much, I dont think there is any acceptable number of shootings, or murders, or any violent crime, but it is human nature and it is not something that will ever go away. we can try to reduce it, but its always going to happen.
Mass shootings account for so few deaths, more people are killed being struck by blunt objects, drunk assholes driving back from the bars kill more people, how much death, murder, violence, etc.. do you think stems from alcohol alone? im guessing a shit ton more than guns could ever hope to be associated with. But its not worth the publics safety to infringe on our right to consume alcohol, just like its not worth the publics safety to infringe on our right to own guns. (thats assuming that taking away guns WOULD solve this problem, which i disagree with btw) our rights and freedoms are more important than perceived safety.
I just dont see this as a big problem that we have to worry about, its purely because its violent, scary, and gets to peoples emotions. people think emotionally, and the result is they react illogically.
anyway, if i had to say where the root of americas violence "problem" lies is in inner city culture. it breeds poverty and violence, gangs accounts for something like 80% of gun related deaths in this country. yet its the occasional psycho looser white kid who shoots into a crowd that gets all the attention and we perceive as the problem because of our natural human instinct to react emotionally thus think illogically.
XtRemE11Im gonna sound like a dick but am I the only one who doesnt see the US as having a problem with mass shootings? I mean yeah, one shooting is too much, I dont think there is any acceptable number of shootings, or murders, or any violent crime, but it is human nature and it is not something that will ever go away. we can try to reduce it, but its always going to happen.
Mass shootings account for so few deaths, more people are killed being struck by blunt objects, drunk assholes driving back from the bars kill more people, how much death, murder, violence, etc.. do you think stems from alcohol alone? im guessing a shit ton more than guns could ever hope to be associated with. But its not worth the publics safety to infringe on our right to consume alcohol, just like its not worth the publics safety to infringe on our right to own guns. (thats assuming that taking away guns WOULD solve this problem, which i disagree with btw) our rights and freedoms are more important than perceived safety.
I just dont see this as a big problem that we have to worry about, its purely because its violent, scary, and gets to peoples emotions. people think emotionally, and the result is they react illogically.
anyway, if i had to say where the root of americas violence "problem" lies is in inner city culture. it breeds poverty and violence, gangs accounts for something like 80% of gun related deaths in this country. yet its the occasional psycho looser white kid who shoots into a crowd that gets all the attention and we perceive as the problem because of our natural human instinct to react emotionally thus think illogically.
Emotion trumps logic for most, and as a result almost every problem we face in society exists.
.frenchylet's just stop making shit storm threads on purpose or have 1 thread for all the stupid worthless shit like this to go in
Nah, you're trolling. No one can be that much of a heartless cunt to think the loss of 9 lives at the hand of a racist terrorist is worthless. But yet again, you're Frenchy so I wouldn't put it past you...
S.J.WNah, you're trolling. No one can be that much of a heartless cunt to think the loss of 9 lives at the hand of a racist terrorist is worthless. But yet again, you're Frenchy so I wouldn't put it past you...
I'm seriously convinced that you have aspergers syndrome or something
CirilloMaybe not prevented, but definitely mitigated. Even someone who hates guns can't deny the fact that the easiest way to stop someone with a gun is with a gun.
That's faulty logic though because it ignores all the other potential consequences of people in society carrying more guns. It's all well and good arming more people with this insanely idealistic notion that those guns will only ever be used by 'good' guy who is lucky enough to be in the right place and the right time to shoot the 'bad guy'. The reality is though those guns held by the 'good guys' are more likely to be used themselves in a moment of rage, or in an accidental shooting, or when it turns out that the 'good guy' has mental problems too.
How can you possibly predict who should have guns so they can save the day? How do you know they won't be the ones who end up using them to harm someone? Or do you just make sure that everyone has guns and then when it kicks off just blindly hope that the good guys will win the shoot out and kill more bad guys than the number of good guys getting killed? That is insanity - what sort of society would that result in? One with more death and more murder and more mass shootings.
The fact is most studies show that more guns = more people are more likely to die from homicide. This fantasy of heroes shooting down the bad guys just doesn't stack up.
Here's the conclusion from one of many such studies (Firearm Justifiable
Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use - An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data)
CONCLUSION
The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur
in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype
promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.5 percent of the justifiable
homicides that occurred in 2012 the persons shot were known to the shooter.
The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: more than 33,000 dead, more than 81,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives traumatized
and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and
gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry
use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault
weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most
striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.14