"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.
Discuss.
- A Hectic Day at Church, and Then a Hellish Visitor
- Charleston relatives 'forgive' shooting suspect in court
- Latest on church shooting: Black, white pastors get together
- Terrorism v hate crime: How US courts decide: After the murder of nine black Americans at a church in Charleston, South Carolina by a white man, advocates and commentators are calling for suspect Dylann Roof to be described as a terrorist.
- Why we shouldn't call Dylann Roof a terrorist
- We Asked a Lawyer if Dylann Roof Could Face Terrorism Charges
- As Media Labels Roof 'Troubled Loner,' Justice Department Moves Forward With Domestic Terrorism Charges
- Was the South Carolina shooting a hate crime or a terrorist attack?
- Terrorism in Charleston demands the government act like black lives matter
- Criminal Justice Professor Discusses Charleston Shooting Suspect Dylann Roof
- Dylann Roof's friend: 'He never said anything racist': Christon Scriven, 21, told the BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan that Mr Roof "wanted to shoot that school up - UCA university of Charleston - it's 3 miles up the street from that church."
- Mitt Romney Calls on South Carolina to Remove Confederate Flag at Capitol
- Dylann Storm Roof Photos Found on Website [manifesto archive]
- Here's What Appears to Be Dylann Roof's Racist Manifesto
- Photos Of Dylann Roof, Racist Manifesto Surface On Website
- BBC: The collection of photographs found on a website also show 21-year-old Dylann Roof burning the US flag and visiting a former slave plantation.
- Possible manifesto of Dylann Roof draws from hate group's text, expert says
- Police: Charleston church shooting suspect Dylann Roof is on suicide watch
- Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof Was Loner Caught in 'Internet Evil': Family
- The Mainstream Media Is Showing Its Bias In Charleston Massacre. And It's Ugly.
- Rick Perry: Charleston massacre was an 'accident' caused by drugs — not guns
- Suboxone: What is the drug linked to Charleston shooting suspect?
Original Submission
Related Stories
In South Carolina, the governor has called for the Confederate flag to stop flying over the capitol. The governors of Virginia and North Carolina quickly declared that they would remove the flag from state license plates. Meanwhile, several of the country's top retailers -- including eBay and Amazon -- announced in quick succession that they would stop selling Confederate flag merchandise. Now MJ Lee reports at CNN that the debate over the Confederate flag is the most recent and vivid illustration of how changes in the business community can influence and pressure politics. "What you are seeing is a broad, acknowledgment across both the consumer, the political and the business community that that particular emblem is no longer part of something that should be a state-issued emblem," says GOP strategist Scott Jennings.
Walmart, Amazon, eBay and Sears announced within the span of one day that they would ban the sale of Confederate flag merchandise from their stores, saying they had no intention of offending customers. As Walmart CEO Doug McMillon put it, the decision was straightforward: "We want everybody to feel comfortable shopping at Walmart." Corporate and business leaders say that the abandoning the flag is a step towards inclusiveness for a region that has long struggled to shed negative images. "The business community -- they have a lot of say and power all over the country, whether it's on religion or ethnicity or LGBT issues," says Ralph Northam. "When you're running a business, you have to have the doors open and welcome diversity."
takyon: Alabama Governor Orders Removal Of Confederate Flags From Capitol
'Dukes of Hazzard' toy car General Lee loses its Confederate flag
Note: These moves are in response to the events in Charleston.
Original Submission
Common Dreams reports
In a much-hailed, if modestly problematic, act of righteous revenge, [on Thursday August 4,] an African-American inmate allegedly sucker-punched [...] Dylann Roof--an act that sparked much online praise for the "vigilante hero", a fundraiser for donations to his commissary account, and, finally, the posting of his $100,000 bond by a supporter.
Roof is in protective custody at the Charleston County Detention Center for killing nine African-American churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015. He was in the shower when Dwayne Stafford, a 26-year-old inmate reportedly doing time for either weed violations or strong arm burglary, allegedly got out of his cell, reached Roof, and landed a couple of punches to his face. The sheriff said Roof was attacked "for no reason", which many would argue was less than accurate.
Roof suffered only minor injuries, and his lawyer declined to press charges.
[...] The next day, 18 months after he'd originally been arrested, an anonymous supporter posted [Stafford's] bond, and on Friday he was reportedly freed.
I find that heavy.com typically has the facts quickly on violent crimes.
Previous: [Racially-Motivated Mass Murder in] Charleston, SC
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:35PM
Ahhh sorry but fuck this shit. I thought that wasn't what this fucking site was supposed to be about.
There are enough PC sites to engage in this discussion...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:42PM
He used the Internet. We'll just have to see what 1st amendment restrictions follow.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:54PM
This is exactly what we should discuss here. We need to ban everyone but the wise government from having guns.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:10AM
It's another example of the American Disease™:- almost unfettered access to weapons of war that kill with brutal efficiency.
There is insufficient political will to look for a cure.
Wave hands in horror, wash blood from collective hands, rinse and repeat.
Nothing to see, move along now.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:26AM
This is only stoking discussion because the killer had a stupid haircut and dumb facial expressions. And also to divide and conquer Americans who may have more important things to discuss now.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dusty monkey on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:34AM
It's another example of the American Disease™
This guy killed 29, injured 130 [cnn.com] .... with a knife, in a train station, in a country with extremely strict gun control laws.
(thats not a typo.. killed 29.. injured 130 .. one hundred fucking thirty injured)
Rampage killings [wikipedia.org] are neither unique to America nor places with a lack of gun control laws.
Liberals always believe that they've got it all figured out, but often seem to not have even the basic facts straight, and when confronted with this they just find other reasons to support the same conclusions.
- when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil - stop supporting evil -
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:14AM
Oh, how fast the language evolves: we're using now singulars for... what...less than a dozen people? From the quoted link:
So, in one corner 10 persons manage to kill 29 and injure 130 in a busy train station. In the other corner, 1 (one) puny looking guy shoots dead 9 others, stopped because no others were handy.
Place your bets on where the next rampage is most likely to be announced.
Ready? So... who bet West Philadelphia [foxnews.com] - 7 wounded in random shooting?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:19AM
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:06PM
Red herring. What does the fact that knives can be used to kill people have to do with the fact that guns are extremely deadly weapons with no use outside of murder? And the fact that gun control laws aren't 100% perfectly effective isn't relevant either. Insulators and conductors aren't perfect either, so does that mean we shouldn't bother using them? Should we stop using combustion engines because their efficiency is below 100%?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:30AM
We need to ban everyone but the wise government from having guns. [emphasis added]
I can't tell. Sarcasm right?
I don't trust my govt, AND I don't trust rednecks with guns-- but, I repeat myself.
As we disarm the general public, we need to disarm the police. We also need to severely punish (firing squad?) all those in power responsible for sending the military against civilians (has happened pretty frequently in the US, with civilian deaths in several of the incidents).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:23AM
That is all.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Informative) by fadrian on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:02AM
You may now ignore the article should it offend you so much.
That is all.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:03AM
Now, now... look, mate, to a great majority of the world, USofA is "Planet America" - something a bit alien to the idea of "everyday-life" as understood by the rest of this world, and most of the time not in a flattering way.
Seems that a great deal of weirdness emanates from there and heaps of really alien things happens there.
In this light, I don't see why the hell Obama's remark of "At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens... You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." is not interesting or should be confined into the PC section
(btw, "political correctness" is another thing that seemed to have entered in the world culture mainly through US. Until then it was specific to stalinist dogma [wikipedia.org]. Weird, huh?)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by fleg on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:49AM
i'm getting bored with this comment. maybe it would be a good idea to have a link to the FAQ (where this is addressed) on the comment posting page? something like "Please read the FAQ before posting".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:49AM
To a very limited extent, I agree with you. But the problem will be resolved once we have the nexuses up and running. Then stories such as this, which don't appeal to everybody, can be on a nexus that you will be able to ignore. Basically, you will be allowed to focus your attention on stories that fit into specific categories and ignore those that do no interest you. However, the weekend trolls are about and they have significantly increased the noise level in this discussion.
There is a very serious question being asked in TFA. In Switzerland, the majority of homes have military weapons available to them. The population is part of the that country's defence force. However, killings by shooting are quite rare there. Why is that? What is the difference between the Swiss and Americans that means that it seems that we are frequently hearing about such events in one country but not in the other? The same can be said of other European nations. Even in those European countries which regularly have armed police patrolling, the number of killings per capita is less than in the US. It is not for me, as a European, to say what could/should be done to change this but it is right for Obama to ask the question of his fellow countrymen. If this is the type of nation that the majority of Americans want to live in, then so be it. It is your choice. But for many who are not Americans, it seems strange that a country that has so much ability and potential cannot solve this problem.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:29AM
US has about 89 guns per 100 people; Switzerland 46 per 100. The US gun homicide rate is actually pretty low and has been decreasing since the beginning of the 90's -- it's a safe country, unless you live in the ghetto and get caught in a gang fight [washingtonpost.com]. There aren't actually all that many of those even, though.
There are, however, a lot of reporters and 24-hour news channels. Any incident will get plastered on the media and covered constantly, which gives the impression that America is going to hell in a handbasket. Less than one percent of homicides (gun-related or not) involved three or more victims [pewsocialtrends.org], so the rampage-shooting thing is really, really rare. You have a 1:325 chance of dying by gun-related homicide, but a 1:246 chance of dying by falling down, 1:121 of dying by suicide, 1:100 of dying in an auto accident, and 1:7 of dying by cancer. But, cancer and falling down don't make for good news stories.
If you really want to save American lives, doing something about guns isn't the answer. Working to prevent heart disease and cure cancer is. If black lives really matter to you, and if statistics also actually matter to you, then fight against heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes [cdc.gov]: those are the real killers out there, the ones that actually are going to get you one day, most likely. The fact that black people are at an elevated risk of illness is a real disparity in America. Your chance of dying in a white-supremacist's shooting rampage is, on the other hand, infinitesimally small.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:24AM
I couldn't agree more. I believe that you intended that to be a generic 'you' and not addressed at me personally. I am not an American and do not feel qualified to tell others how they should sort out their country.
So you would expect that the number of shootings per capita in Switzerland would be about half that found in America. But it is one tenth. There is something else other than just the availability of weapons. So, ignoring taking weapons away from people, there is still something that can be done to improve the situation.
I am not knowledgeable about US geography, and I didn't realise that the latest incident took place in a ghetto. The only pictures I have seen of it have been on TV, and the area doesn't look too deprived in those images. I accept your comments regarding the ease by which news can now be disseminated and the way that it can distort public perceptions.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:00PM
The USA, however, instead just has guns fuck yeah.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM
I am not knowledgeable about US geography, and I didn't realise that the latest incident took place in a ghetto.
There you go, confusing individual events with data. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/19/the-racial-divide-in-americas-gun-deaths/ [washingtonpost.com], which the GP linked, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide [wikipedia.org] which he/she didn't link. Homicide in the US is very much racially segregated: 93% of blacks killed are killed by blacks. The rate of death by firearm for blacks is twice that for whites. Taken together, that means that blacks are much more likely to murder each other with a firearm than whites are to murder each other, and that it's very unlikely that a white man will shoot a black man. In fact, a white man is five times more likely to commit suicide by gun, a black man five times more likely to be murdered with one, and by another black man at that.
The latest incident does not conform to that pattern. Not all data does: there are always outliers. The events in Charleston were highly abnormal. They were the work of an abnormal mind bent on doing something far out of line with the rest of society. Do not mistake that for the norm.
Here's the real problem: you can't effectively guard against highly abnormal events, the "black swans," to use the metaphor common in the financial world. You can, however, use data to predict where resources can be more effectively invested to prevent predictable tragedies. Given that the likelihood of developing diabetes or cancer or heart disease is far greater than that of dying by a homicide, resources need to be invested in those diseases rather than in the edge case of gun-related deaths.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:21PM
Something your analysis does not take into account is the impact on the living.
People who die of diabetes and heart disease tend to be significantly older than the people who die by firearms. They have already contributed a significant amount to their communities. And when they die, the scars left on the living are much more shallow because although premature, the death is neither sudden nor intimidating for the bereaved.
Also, false dichotomy. Working to fix one problem doesn't preclude working to fix the other.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday June 22 2015, @02:37AM
I am not knowledgeable about US geography, and I didn't realise that the latest incident took place in a ghetto.
The shooter had nothing to do with the ghetto, it was a white person who came from many miles away and chose a church frequented almost entirely by African-Americans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:11PM
Fallacy of relative privation. So what there are things that are worse? That doesn't mean guns aren't a problem that needs to be addressed too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:45PM
The killer is going to be tried by a jury and put to death to the cheers of almost everyone. What's to discuss?
Never let a tragedy or a crisis go to waste. -- some politician
Oh.
I hear that the killer wore sneakers. And drove a car. And used both to get away, or to try to. Let's ban those!
I think we should follow the Chinese model and regulate the possession of almost everything and use the power of the state to regulate communication and thought that government might not like.
Discuss.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:52PM
The sneakers is definitely the cause behind this! They must be outlawed. Let's author the bill "Better boots for America". No boot may be bought unless manufactured by Nike slaves^H^HAmerican brand. The bill also include authorization for the police to raid the house of anyone seen with non approved boots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:27AM
But wait... Fact: He was using Windows on his PC. Fact: No Linux user has ever done this. That must be the reason, ban Windows so it won't happen again.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:34AM
How will any useful application work if you banned Windows, though? Ban Windows and you might as well be punching your programs in cards with your teeth just like the college days.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:21AM
Well, I, for one, preferred punching programs in cards to using Windows...
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:25AM
Yeah... good times... I reckon many a soylenter are nostalgic about college days... at least those of us who can still remember them.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:23AM
Hans Reiser [wikipedia.org]
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:05PM
What nonsense! If only everyone else also had sneakers as well, then they would have been able to defend themselves!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:03AM
Damn, you're right! I never thought of that! Almost all burglars wear sneakers. Knock out game players wear sneakers. Car-jackers wear sneakers. Do rapists even take their sneakers off? Hell - I've not seen a photograph of a mass shooter wearing boots, or leather shoes. Sneakers. Even rappers wear sneakers.
You've nailed it. Sneakers are responsible for the moral decay of American society!
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:21AM
WAIT!!! He was breathing!?!?!
Damn... every killer i've ever heard of was a breather. I heard Adolf Hitler breathed lots of air: TONS of it even.....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:16AM
Yeah, but a MOUTH breather... get your stuph straight!
BTW: Nice Godwin!
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @09:39PM
This just in...Government issues law that all sneakers must have squeakers installed for tracking. Anyone seen barefoot or without squeakers will be highly scrutinized by the CIA and IRS for any misdeeds. This law was created to protect the children.....THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:43AM
The killer is going to be tried by a jury and put to death to the cheers of almost everyone.
Except to people who don't support unlimited government, which is one thing you have to accept before you can support the death penalty.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:28AM
Nonsense. Small communities can support and enforce the death penalty. It has happened often enough in history. Individual human beings are capable of enforcing the death penalty, small groups and small communities - it happened long before "big government" was created. Or, "unlimited government", as you say.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:40AM
Nonsense. Small communities can support and enforce the death penalty.
Not without unlimited government. A government that can murder captured people is one with too much power.
Unlimited government can be local.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:50AM
Not without unlimited government.
[...]
Unlimited government can be local.
No it can't. For "local" is a constraint. And by definition, unlimited government doesn't have any constraints.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:05PM
No it can't. For "local" is a constraint.
Why not just say that no government is technically unlimited, then? Big, unlimited... whatever you want to call it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:25PM
Why not just say that no government is technically unlimited, then?
Because it's not true? Just because a government can kill people under certain legal situations doesn't mean that it can arbitrarily kill people. For example, is a government "technically unlimited" because its law enforcement can kill in self-defense?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @01:34AM
Because it's not true? Just because a government can kill people under certain legal situations doesn't mean that it can arbitrarily kill people.
Defending yourself or others from imminent (not hypothetical) physical harm is the only situation I can see where killing is acceptable. Deciding that someone should die after they've already been captured is an example of big government, if you prefer that term.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @02:09AM
Deciding that someone should die after they've already been captured is an example of big government, if you prefer that term.
That term is inappropriate too, because small governments can exercise that sort of power too. And it still depends on what sort of constraints legal and otherwise exist on the government officials.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:54PM
I did say _almost everyone.
I think "differently limited" would be a fairer description. The government of South Carolina in this case is limited... Though not in the particular way you want. There are laws it cannot pass and huge areas of policy that they cannot make. Examples include immigration and foreign policy...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:27PM
I think a better argument would be that a government must own the individuals' bodies, taking their self-sovereignty, before they can institute a death penalty. A government which literally owns people would also be a government that condones slavery. Self-sovereignty is one of the few fundamental rights that should have no limits and few if any exceptions - one should not lose ownership of their own body, not because they got pregnant, not because they committed a crime, never. This means suicide is a fundamental right as well; the only possible exception would be if one is literally incapable of tending to themselves, eg, comatose / vegetative state or extreme delirium.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:17AM
Errrr... a politician, who obviously had probability of 9/n. of attendees to get shot, got shot. The assassin's identity was not known yet the act had already been classified as a racist shooting. How naive not to consider other possibilities, even if the racist one is the right one.
Mafia style warnings done as mass kilings happened at least once here in Italy. To your credit, only few news sources discussed the obvious signs that linked the killer to the ndrangheta families, while all the rest came up with the same pointless discussion about gun control. I am all for global disarm but people wielding the most powerful weapon, $, that discuss gun control are hilarious.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:20PM
False analogy, for many reasons. Neither the sneakers nor the car were used as tools to murder, and unlike guns they have other uses besides just murder.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:48PM
The BS runs deep with this one.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:55PM
Uh-Oh, all the racists will be rounded up now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:53PM
The times, they are a'changin. Maybe cross that one of the list of baby names?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:25AM
(Score: 1, Troll) by kaszz on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:56PM
So crazy ideas gets executed because availability of guns and some drugs eliminates psychological barriers? Random probabilities tend to influence things like this but otoh there's usually as can be seen in the headlines above. Some smoldering smoke before the fire starts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:26AM
> So crazy ideas gets executed because availability of guns and some drugs eliminates psychological barriers?
If it were meth or some other drug that tends to get people worked up, I'd agree.
But this was an opiate. That's unlikely to do much other than make the guy super chill.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:08AM
Kid was a meth and heroin addict on prescription meds. A Jewish kid who wore patches of white dominance over apartheid Africa, with 2/3rds of his Facebook friends being black and who voted for Barack Obama in 2012. Passed his gun purchase background checks. Admitted to his homosexual black friend that his target was really a local college, and wasn't reported to police.
There's a lot going on here. But it's the Confederate flag that's the real problem.
Never let a tragedy go to waste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:18AM
Wow. Your life sounds painful and angry.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:20AM
Hell yeah! Well, maybe not necessarily take them all away, but in what he said a couple days ago makes a great deal of sense. No other developed country, including Canada, has anywhere near the level of gun violence we have. There has to be a reason for this, and there is. I need not say what that is. The non-Americans reading this know the answer, and the Americans who read this have to be either blind or completely deluded to not see it.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:29AM
> I need not say what that is.
Yeah, that's a great way to make a positive contribution to the discussion.
Don't say it so you won't have to defend it, just smugly assert it and feel good about yourself.
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:32AM
So, what is the reason?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:33AM
Too many bullets.
(Score: 2) by schad on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:44AM
For all the joking about Canada being the 51st state, we are, in actuality, completely separate countries, with our own particular histories and challenges. For instance, Canada never fought a bloody civil war that ended with the abolition of all slavery. As this particular case was quite clearly motivated by race-related tensions that are largely unique to the US among developed countries, I'm not sure how much Canada has to teach us on this matter.
We're still talking about that guy who shot up the black church in SC, right? Or have we all decided to use that tragedy to advance our own political agendas, however unrelated they might be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:13AM
Lamestream Media is attempting to redirect attention by trying to convince folks that this was about religion rather than about a white supremacist and his connections.
The ages of the victims should be the first indicator (even if you didn't know further) that these people were leaders in that community and that the murderer's intent was to dismantle the guidance structure that the elders provided.
It makes me think of the amorphous nature of the Occupy movement where it wasn't possible to behead the enterprise by threatening|assaulting|arresting a tiny number of charismatic individuals.
With Occupy, the bully-boy cops actually had to remove -everyone- from the assembly areas to break up the action.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:01AM
If you exclude dangerous minorities from the statistics, America's gun crime rate is on par with other first world nations.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:18AM
Can we have a "Citation Needed" mod option, plz ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:47PM
Does it matter? European crime statistics conveniently leave out eastern Europe entirely and everyone except the United States leaves out suicides and accidents when discussing gun violence. When the two compared, it is actually all gun deaths in the US versus only actual gun crimes in countries that are highly ordered in western Europe. This is common knowledge but is constantly overlooked, just like the alcohol issue killing 3-12 times as many people as guns do yet is applauded as a valuable cultural heritage.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by mendax on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:22AM
Oh yes! Lincoln should have deported all those uppity niggers back to Africa. Oh, and we should build a a huge moat along the southern border to keep all those criminal spics and wetbacks out stealing our jobs. Oh, wait, that's all those curry-eating bastards from India.
I hope others can see the sarcasm dripping from this post before I get horribly flamed.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday June 21 2015, @10:35AM
Simpler. America's violent crime rate isn't that bad, period. And if you look at the Red areas, ya know where most of the actual guns are, crime is very low and dropping. Crime is a problem in the Blue Hellholes where Democrats misrule and generally make firearm ownership most difficult and policing erratic and ineffective. More guns, less crime; it really is that simple. Robert Heinlein's "An armed society is a polite society." has now been subjected to about as good of a real life experimental trial as happens in the social sciences and the results are indisputable. But we can't talk about that because it would ruin the Narrative.
And Obama, along with pretty much every other Democrat politician and media outlet, is simply lying about 'no other advanced country' having problems of this sort. They do it every time there is one of these incidents occurs so we have had this conversation too many times. Google is your friend but if you aren't a Democrat (and thus on the left hand of the Bell Curve) you probably remember enough from the news to know it is BS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:28PM
[Citation Needed]
Stop watching Fox News so much. The facts show the opposite [addictinginfo.org] of the biased bullshit you're trying to pass off as truth.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:39PM
What about if you exclude dangerous minorities in the other first world countries? Where I am, the gun crime is mostly gangs consisting of first generation immigrants from various countries such as India, various African countries, Eastern European countries and so on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:11PM
And see what a difference a law abiding gun owner can make.
What if the folks at Charlie Hebdo had been allowed to defend themselves? You know the first policemen responding had to run away (surprise!) because they were unarmed?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by el_oscuro on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:26AM
Make no mistake about it, the Civil War was all about slavery. Lots of people were getting extremely rich off of having slaves. That is why they fought it so viscously. 25 years ago, I visited Dachau, with the electrified fences, gas chambers, and barracks that had something like 200 people to a small room. You could absolutely feel the ghosts of the 1/2 million people that were murdered there.
A few years later, the Washington post ran a story about the slave trade. They had a picture of a gate in Dakar that led to a dock. A that was missing was a "Arbeit macht frei" sign. The conditions on those slave ships were not unlike the concentration camps. The only difference is the Nazis had modern technology and were a lot more efficient at killing.
As evidenced by that jackass in SC, the confederate flag is symbol of hate, and needs to disappear.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:47AM
There WAS another difference, which you entirely gloss over.
Jews didn't sell other Jews into Dachau. In Africa, Africans sold other Africans into the slave trade.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:54AM
That is true. Didn't really think of that.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:27AM
> Jews didn't sell other Jews into Dachau. In Africa, Africans sold other Africans into the slave trade.
So what?
What difference does that make? One tribe selling another tribe into slavery. Just because they both happen to live in proximity to each other, that's meaningful? How is that different from german protestants putting german jews into concentration camps?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:45AM
So - what are you saying? It's alright to sell members of another tribe into slavery? Alright then - IF that is the position that you choose to take, then there would be no shame in white people enslaving black people. They are OBVIOUSLY not from the same tribe.
Hypocricy, much?
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:45AM
> So - what are you saying? It's alright to sell members of another tribe into slavery?
You are so racist that you couldn't conceive that I was making another point, could you?
I am saying what I said explicitly, that it doesn't make a difference that one tribe did it to another. The SAME THING happened in germany, ergo your entire 'difference' is no difference at all. Except to racists like yourself who think grouping all africans together as a single group somehow makes what german protestants did to german jews worse.
(Score: 1) by timbojones on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:27AM
The bucket "African" is a lot bigger than the bucket "Jew". Africans have more genetic diversity than all other humans combined.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:51AM
As I posted to AC above - hypocricy much?
All men are brothers, but in the case of Africans, you take the time to point out their diversity? Are all men brothers, or not? If you choose to take the position that Africans selling Africans into slavery is understandable or forgivable, then you MUST ALSO understand and forgive white people for using blacks as slaves.
Your position is untenable. You must either accept and condone slavery, or you must condemn slavery - you can't claim that slavery is alright in one circumstance, but not alright in another.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a racist who hates whites, but loves blacks. In such a case, then anything and everything that a white person does seems wrong to you, and anything and everything that a black person does is fine with you.
Old Shakespeare had it right.
"What's in a name? That which we call a racist
By any other name would smell like shit."
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:01AM
The bucket "African" is a lot bigger than the bucket "Jew". Africans have more genetic diversity than all other humans combined.
What is your point in bringing that up?
The Africans selling other Africans into slavery were neighboring clans, sometimes long time rivals, sometimes just one warlord coveting another's farmland or cattle. Sometimes brothers. This wasn't a case of of one radically different ethnic group from afar invading new territories. They got paid by the head, and got to keep the lands, cattle, often the wives of the merchandise. In all, about 250,000 slaves were imported to the US, while about 4.9 million were imported to Brazil, mostly from Angola.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:17AM
The reason a lot of folks ended up in Camp Delta (Guantanamo) was that it was economically advantageous to that guy's neighbor.
Just make up a story about a competitor, "rat him out" to the gullible USA operatives, take all that guy's stuff after he's gone--and you get a bounty from the USA's fools to boot.
.
Why don't double quotes work in Subject lines any more?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:44AM
I usually read that this is only because of isolated pygmy tribes [wikipedia.org], in particular around the Congo. Do you have any other evidence handy? There is a lot of FUD around that particular statistic on the web and would be interested to read more.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Gorb on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:35AM
There is a thesis out there with some circumstantial evidence that the Jewish Council and Zionists allowed and supported the elimination of the poorest of jews in 1944, with 460,000 being sent to Auschwitz. "They were unworthy to enter the Holy Land" quoted from (translated) http://ioncoja.ro/holocaust-in-romania/cine-i-a-trimis-la-auschwitz-pe-cei-460-000-de-evrei-din-ungaria/ [ioncoja.ro]
Is it wrong to have sexual fantasies about cartoon characters?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:58AM
Yes, I'm aware of that controversy. I can't read the link you supply, but there is plenty of English language material on the subject. Even before the Balfour agreement, it was decided that "the end justifies the means". At least some Jews thought it desirable to sacrifice some Jews, as a means to unite Jews around the world, as well as helping to sway non-Jewish people to accept a Jewish homeland.
I'd rather not go very deeply into that here. It should suffice that we agree there are some Jews who are as deplorable as the low lifes from any other community of human beings.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday June 21 2015, @10:40AM
He might not have sold them but turncoat Jews like George Soros did colaborate with the Nazis to help them round them up. And he ain't got any better since.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:42AM
You get points for that observation - but there is a tremendous difference between a few (or even a few hundred) collaborators, and a continent-wide industry.
When the Jews were loaded onto the trains, they saw German soldiers by the hundreds, and some few of them may have spotted a race traitor among the crowds of soldiers. When the Africans were loaded onto the ships, they saw some dozens of white faces, among the thousands of their fellow blacks who participated openly in the slave trade.
I'm still having problems drawing an equivalency between the slave trade, and the holocaust. For me to see them as parallels, someone is going to have to do a much better job of demonstrating the parallelism.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:38PM
turncoat Jews like George Soros did colaborate with the Nazis
You get points for that observation
And there we have proof of the quality of your analysis - anything that fits your nasty worldview is true.
Soros was a 13 year old boy [mediamatters.org] when forced to accompany the nazi who was protecting him as he inventoried the estate of a jewish family that had paid it as ransom to escape nazi germany. To you a 13-year old is a collabrator, to anyone who isn't a total asshole that's a kid not even old enough to be in high school.
For me to see them as parallels, someone is going to have to do a much better job of demonstrating the parallelism.
If you weren't so racist you would have seen it in the example jmorris provided - white germans profited immensely by confiscating the property of their fellow white jews. [livescience.com] Same thing happened with the japanese internment in the US - most of them lost all their property, including real estate, to their neighbors.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:39PM
Is he still 13? Because he's still supporting [wikipedia.org] nazis, both the self-confessed ones and the others, in fact he (along with far too many others) is supporting the only nazi government in existence and helped establish it with seed money of about a hundred million USD. He also wants the EU (i.e. other people's money) to fund them with 50 billion Euro.
Or how would you see things if it was you who was “not $nationality enough” and violently attacked, shelled, shot, or burnt alive?
Notice that Soros also supports the existence of Kosovo which seems very likely to have been the first attempt at creating an entire US/NATO “black site” state. Whether or not it was successful is up for debate.
Not that Soros is not the only one either: the Azov battalion [wikipedia.org] wouldn't exist was it not for the funds from jewish local big shot Ihor Kolomoyskyi [wikipedia.org]. It's precisely the same people who ran Maidan; the same guys who had internal rules like “no handguns, only rifles allowed” while patrolling and corralling the paid protesters; the boots on the ground and the enablers of the false flag shootings.
Soros & McCain & Obama = scum jackpot, add the EU dictator Juncker [wikipedia.org] and you've got yourself a full house of evil.
And when it comes to Juncker also remember that Luxembourg is Europe's biggest and most important tax haven and corruption central; it's how the likes of Google and Apple get away with paying nearly no tax at all. That puts “successful politician” in the right context.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:06AM
He might not have sold them but turncoat Jews like George Soros did colaborate with the Nazis to help them round them up. And he ain't got any better since.
Soros was 13 when he "collaborated" with the Nazis. Unlike say, Prescott Bush, who was a US senator and helped build the Bush family fortune helping to finance the Nazis rise to power.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:37PM
It doesn't fucking matter who sold the slaves, the people who bought them were even more culpable. Even if Southerners try to deny this.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:00PM
Yes - it matters. It matters a lot. The people who TOOK the slaves are no less culpable than those who bought and sold the slaves. How do you think they GOT the slaves, anyway? A raiding party went into a village, killed off however fighting age men was necessary, raped the women, tied/shackle/chained the captured survivors together, and marched those prisoners for miles and miles with inadequate food and drink, then drove them into pens like animals. Let's not forget that the weak and infirm would have been killed off along the way - toddlers, the elderly, people suffering from disease. Then, the auctions, separating mothers from children, etc ad nauseum. Man's inhumanity to man started with raiders destroying the lives of people in neighboring villages, not with pirate vessels raiding the coasts.
Maybe worse than raiding neighboring villages, were the political maneuverings. The shaman can't get along with the chief, so one or the other has his opponent captured and delivered to a coastal town as a slave. Or, a jealous lover has his/her rival kidnapped, and sent to the coast.
I don't know how the hell you measure evil, but the locals who traded in slaves are equals with the sea captains and their crews in every way. And, neither was one whit better than the end buyers in the Americas.
Evil is evil - and you can't excuse those Africans who engaged in the same evil that the white men were doing.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1) by eof on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:09PM
Slavery has existed throughout history. The difference with the US slave model was the dehumanization of the slave. The fact that Africans sold to slave traders does not necessarily mean they subscribed to the US practices. In other cultures, slaves could hold positions of prominence, some were generals. In many Muslim societies slaves were simply a symbol of wealth and there are examples of slaves being married off to the daughters of kings.
A further consequence of the US slave history was the association skin color with being non-human. Thus, when slavery ended, the perception of the freed slaves as being lesser continued.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:26PM
Now, you are on to something. But - the dehumanization didn't take place early in our history. It might surprise you, but that came rather late in history.
I think that I linked to gun law history elsewhere in this discussion - http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-long-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/ [theblaze.com]
Also, one of those people who bears much of the responsibility for dehumanizing black people, was himself a black man. Green, I think his name was - let me find him again . . . No, Anthony Johnson was his name. He argued in court that black people should remain enslaved in perpetuity, and the court agreed with him! http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/the-first-legal-slave-owner-in-what-would-become-the-united-states-was-a-black-man/ [todayifoundout.com] Prior to his case, blacks were considered as indentured servants, no different than any white servant.
So, sadly, yet again, a black man bears much of the responsibility for the reprehensible treatment of his own people.
But, your final statement, regarding skin color, is spot on. It's a terrible shame that a black person might blend into almost any population in the world after a generation or two - but here in the US the courts worked hard to ensure that he could never blend in.
Sometimes, I want to curse black people for not assimilating - but then I remember that he wasn't PERMITTED to assimilate for 200 years and more. It's a fokking complicated mess we have here, that's for sure.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1) by eof on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:22PM
I think you are stretching the level of responsibility of Anthony Johnson in regards to the treatment of black people. Yes, he filed suit, and may have done so without regard to the race of Casor. I see no evidence that race was a factor in the suit for him, simply 'property rights.'
The article you cite (under "Bonus Facts") makes reference to an earlier case that already suggests a disparity in treatment of blacks and whites (note the second paragraph):
While Johnson is generally considered by most historians to be the first legal slave owner in what would become the United States, there was one person who preceded him in 1640 who owned a slave in all but name. The virtual slave was John Punch, ordered to be an indentured servant for life, though by law was still considered an indentured servant with all the rights that went with that. In Punch’s case, he was made a lifelong indentured servant owing to the fact that he tried to leave before his contract was up. When he was captured and brought back, the judge in the matter decided a suitable punishment was to have Punch’s contract continue for the rest of his life.
What makes Punch’s case even more interesting (and unfair) is that when he ran away, he ran away with two white indentured servants who were also seeking to get out of their contract. The punishment for the white indentured servants was not a lifetime of servitude, though. Rather, they were given 30 lashes with a whip and a mere additional 4 years on their contracts.
Thus, the courts seem to have sided with Johnson on the matter of property rights, but the decision may have been tainted by existing biases. What might have happened if Casor were white?
The 17th century continued with people of African and Indian descent being exploited. Again, from your cited article:
In Virginia, in 1662, legislatures enacted a law stating that if you owned a slave, not only were they yours for life, but any children of a slave mother would also be a slave, regardless of whether the father was a slave or not. Before this, the father’s status was typically what was used to determine the child’s status, regardless of race or the mother.
A further change of the laws came in 1670 when a law was passed forbidding those of African or Indian descent from owning any “Christian” slaves. In this case, this did not necessarily mean literal Christian slaves; if you had a black or Indian slave who was a Christian, that was fine, as they were black or Indian, and thus “heathen”, regardless of what they said or believed or even if they were baptized.
A further hardening of the laws came in 1699. In an attempt to get rid of all the prominent free black people, Virginia enacted a law requiring all free black people to leave the colony, to further cement the majority of free people in the colonies as non-black, and allow the tyranny of the majority with respect to those of African descent to progress unhindered.
I think it hard to argue that these developments were caused by the Johnson case, but reflect already existing biases.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:44PM
I'm starting to like your thinking - you're working MUCH harder than most people are willing to do.
Existing biases. Hmmmm. I agree, and I disagree. The US hasn't managed to erase bigotry, racism, and hatred in the 150 years since slavery was ended. Likewise, all that hatred didn't spring forth in full bloom. It was cultivated over a period of almost 400 years. Mr. Johnson advanced an argument in court that his servant should not be protected by indentured servitude laws. Johnson very specifically argued that those laws did not pertain to black African slaves - they were slaves, not servants.
I believe that it took time for blacks and whites to learn to hate and distrust each other, and that Johnson contributed to that learning. In fact, his contribution is at least equal to any other person in the US, black or white. It's kinda tough wading through all the search hits - there are one hell of a lot of bigots, both black and white, who show up in the results. Here is a better link to the case - http://www.historyinanhour.com/2011/03/08/the-first-slave-john-casor/ [historyinanhour.com]
"But Johnson had a change of mind and decided not to let the matter rest. He took the case to the County Court of Northampton County, Virginia, claiming that Parker had taken his “negro servant” and declaring that, by rights, “Thee had ye Negro for his life.”"
Johnson was the FIRST PERSON to claim ownership of another person for life.
Indentured servitude and/or slavery had existed in the US for about 120 to 150 years already, without any person being declared a slave in perpetuity. Johnson was the first to assert that a slave should remain a slave for life.
Immediately after his death, Johnson's own arguments worked against his own children.
"Johnson died in 1670 and his 300 acres of land passed, not to his children, but by court ruling, to a white colonist. The courts declared that “as a black man, Anthony Johnson was not a citizen of the colony.”"
Imagine that . . .
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1) by eof on Monday June 22 2015, @01:11AM
I still see nothing in the link you provided that says Johnson argued Casor had no rights because he was "a negro." Johnson may have been the first person to legally claim ownership of another person for life in the colonies (though there is still the Punch case). I find it hard to believe that he would make the arguments you suggest in the Casor case for the simple reason that doing so would place him in jeopardy--he had arrived in the colonies under the same circumstances. I can believe he pursued the claim for selfish and petty reasons. I would like greater detail on the arguments presented. Further, the decision may have been a one-time sentence, similar to the Punch case. For example, did the ruling bind the other servants on his farm to him for life?
I also don't see that "Johnson's own arguments worked against his own children..." First, because I haven't seen Johnson's arguments, and second, because his children were not indentured servants (or were they?). The fate of Johnson's family is more likely an example of the biases of (some) white colonists who went on exploiting the minority communities, as they had been doing for a while (e.g., taking advantage of illiteracy among the kidnapped Africans and others to extend their servitude). The same can be said of the declaration that Johnson, as a black man, was not a citizen of the colony. What better way to eliminate competition for land and opportunity than to single out the members of a weaker community?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 22 2015, @03:27AM
Please read Ben Kinchlow's explanation of Johnson's actions. http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/ [wnd.com]
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1) by eof on Monday June 22 2015, @07:25PM
The offered article still does not answer my questions: Did Johnson argue that Casor was his slave? On what would the claim be based? Where is that documentation? Under what authority would such enslavement be recognized? Did Johnson ask for Casor's punishment to be lifelong indenture? To quote from the court findings as given in the article:
“Whereas complaint was this day made to the court by the humble petition of Anthony Johnson, Negro, against Mr. Robert Parker that he detains one John Casor, a Negro, the plaintiff’s servant under pretense that the said John Casor is a freeman..."
I read that at there is a dispute about whether or not Casor is a freeman as opposed to still having obligations as an indentured servant. That would make it an analog of the Punch case.
I continue to assert that this ruling does not lay the origin of slavery in the US to Johnson. Independent of that issue, it does not explain the lengths that were gone through to cast those with African ancestry as less than human (something I'm pretty confident Johnson didn't argue in court.) The way I read them, the contemporaneous sources already suggest that efforts to differentiate blacks were already evident: Why else the insistence on describing Johnson and Casor as Negro?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:23AM
Sorry, man, but the answers to those questions are in the article. The author "translated" what he read into modern legalese. Yes, Johnson informed the court that because his slave was a black African, that the terms of indentured servitude did not apply. Ye Negro is mine for life! And, the court agreed with him!
You may be right that efforts to differentiate blacks was evident - but the fact remains that up intil Johnson argued his case, blacks were accorded the same rights as other indentured servants, that is, upon completing their terms of indenture, they were awarded property and/or money and the means to support themselves for some period of time, and granted their freedom.
Casor was the first genuine slave in America, and Johnson was the first slave owner. This was the case that led to slavery in perpetuity. This case condemned the black man to suffer the next couple hundred years of indignities and suffering.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1) by eof on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:10PM
There is nothing in the article that answers the questions I have raised, translation into modern language or not. Where is the fact that Casor is African mentioned, as you suggest it is? The "translation" also only gives the conclusion of the court and no arguments provided by Johnson.
As for your claims regarding blacks being treated equally, take a look at this page (and article) which provides some of the context of the times in addition to touching on the Johnson case: https://books.google.com/books?id=BEd85InqqAIC&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]
Further quick searches yield other interesting bits of context: http://www.virtualjamestown.org/practise.html [virtualjamestown.org]
For the last link, search for "Deed from Henry Brooks Junior to Nicholas Brooks Senior"
I am confident discussion with a scholar in this field would yield a much greater understanding than is provided by a few commentaries.
I maintain that reference to the Johnson case as the root of slavery in the colonies is inaccurate. The episode provides a snapshot of the changing environment in the colonies regarding race and station, but using it to argue it laid the foundation for enslavement and mistreatment of a group of people strikes me as looking for a convenient way to ignore the bigger picture.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:50PM
Good citations there. I'll toss back a paragraph from your own citation - oh crap, you can't copy/paste from those pages. Re-read "Complicity on the part of the King" heading, and the four paragraphs. Note the dates. "The status of the Negro steadily deteriorated . . . this transition is difficult to trace . . . "official pretense" that lifetime servitude did not exist . . ."
I was totally unaware that the king of England had a vested interest in the slave trade. So, maybe government was moving that way anyway - but they needed case law to make it happen.
At the very least, Johnson gave the slavers a solid plank on which to build their platform. And, at the very least, his suit and his claims offered legitimacy to the idea that black people should be treated differently than white people.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:57PM
I've been searching off and on for a couple days for the transcript of the court case - it it even existed. This is the best hit yet:
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655 [encyclopediavirginia.org]
Transcription from Original
The deposition of Captain Samuel Goldsmith taken (in open court) 8th of March Sayth, That beinge at the howse of Anthony Johnson Negro (about the beginninge of November last to receive a hogshead of tobacco) a Negro called John Casar came to this Deponent, and told him that hee came into Virginia for seaven or Eight yeares (per Indenture) And that hee had demanded his freedome of his master Anthony Johnson; And further said that Johnson had kept him his servant seaven yeares longer than hee ought, And desired that this deponent would see that hee might have noe wronge, whereupon your Deponent demanded of Anthony Johnson his Indenture, hee answered, hee never sawe any; The said Negro (John Casor) replyed, hee came for a certayne tyme and had an Indenture Anthony Johnson said hee never did see any But that hee had him for his life; Further this deponent saith That mr. Robert Parker and George Parker they knew that the said Negro had an Indenture (in on Mr. Carye hundred on the other side of the Baye) And the said Anthony Johnson did not tell the negro goe free The said John Casor would recover most of his Cowes of him; Then Anthony Johnson (as this deponent did suppose) was in a feare. Upon this his Sonne in lawe, his wife and his 2 sonnes perswaded the said Anthony Johnson to sett the said John Casor free. more saith not
Samuel Goldsmith
This daye Anthony Johnson Negro made his complaint to the Court against mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro (under pretence that the said Negro is a free man.) The Court seriously consideringe and maturely weighinge the premisses, doe fynde that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master as appeareth by the deposition of Captain Samuel Goldsmith and many probably circumstances. It is therefore the Judgment of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of his said master Anthony Johnson, And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charge in the suit. also Execution.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1) by eof on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:42PM
The view that those of African and non-European descent were lesser predates the Johnson case. Any reading of colonial history based in fact will demonstrate this (for instance, the ABA article). One web resource by a group of historians focuses on the history of the Johnson family based on historical records: http://nabbhistory.salisbury.edu/settlers/profiles/johnson1.html [salisbury.edu]
They do not say much about the suit involving Casor, but they do provide context for his time (See Chapter 1).
Johnson's may be the first civil case around the concept of slavery, but I do not believe he is the first slave holder, nor do I believe anyone took a cue from him as to how non-Europeans should be treated. (Even in the Casor case there is no evidence his claim was based on Casor being African or black.) No doubt Johnson took a cue from others regarding property rights.
Consider this quote from the ABA article in a previous message:
"English slavery was borrowed from Spanish and Portuguese slavery, with none of the legal safeguards that existed in those societies regarding the care and treatment, manumission, marriage, and familial duties of the master...[T]hat slavery became entrenched in America evidences the evil wrought by governmental passivity to the economic depredations of one social group on another."
Johnson was but one man, and exceptional in many ways, but the history of US slavery cannot be laid at his feet.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday June 22 2015, @11:38AM
Actually there were a number of Jewish collaborators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_Nazi_collaborators [wikipedia.org]
Bottom line, there are bad people in every group who will participate in crimes against their own people for their personal benefit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:08AM
As evidenced by that jackass in SC, the confederate flag is symbol of hate, and needs to disappear.
While I agree the flag should go, I believe this is largely a red herring issue.
Nobody looks at a stat flag and decides to go get their gun, and if that were the case, you would expect the guy getting the gun would be black.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:58PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:35PM
And the fact that its a symbol of treason and oppression, and little else. The flying of treasonous symbols is synonymous with sedition.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 22 2015, @05:13AM
So no complaints UNTIL this incident then?
That's not what I see in the press.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @05:51AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:01AM
Why would the confederate flag be at half mast? Nobody was killed or anything, just some property destroyed is all.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by GungnirSniper on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:07AM
That beloved battle flag flies in honor of the brave men of the South who gave life and limb, sweat and scars in defense of their homeland. We shall never forget their sacrifice in the War of Northern Aggression.
As a compromise, I suggest the Bloodstained Banner, the third Confederate national flag be flown instead.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:37PM
FTFY
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:30AM
When you say the war was all about slavery, you are speaking of the south. I'm sure the north had other motivations for going to war aside from ending slavery.
We went to war with Iraq to spread freedom and democracy, or so it was said. 12 years later the place is still a war zone. It doesn't seem like much of a success.
The Civil War had 100 times more American casualties than the Iraq War. 150 years later black people are still being killed for being black?
Was there ever a war fought for the purpose of liberating a group of people from their own countrymen, and it all worked out great?
I wonder how much longer slavery would have lasted if we had repealed the Fugitive Slave Act and let 'em secede.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:42PM
> I'm sure the north had other motivations for going to war aside from ending slavery.
Like maintaining the union? Nah.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Covalent on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:34AM
Australia used to have mass shootings...then they eradicated the cause of mass shootings: Guns. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/)
I'm an American, and I regularly hear the old trope "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
This is a load of garbage. People physically can't kill PEOPLE (ninjas notwithstanding), they can, at most, kill PERSON. But a weak little neo-Nazi can't go into a black church and kill 9 people. He can try, but he's most likely going to get pummeled by the 9 people he's trying to kill.
The science on this is all but irrefutable: Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.
So, how is this a SN topic? The real question is "How do we get rid of all of the guns?" Getting rid of them should be pretty obvious to people who understand facts and data. But we could have a pretty significant discussion about the means of their eradication. Buybacks? Voluntary forfeiture? Ammunition restrictions? And what about that pesky 2nd amendment? And how do we get Congress on board with this?
It's real science to figure this mess out!
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:40AM
Must be nice living in Napa Valley or the Hamptons. You know you can sell those properties for a handsome profit and go even further and better, right?
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:53AM
Have you ever heard of knives and blunt instruments? People will be nasty regardless of the means available.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by timbojones on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:29AM
The vast majority of people will be unable to kill 9 people with a knife or a bat before one of the 9 puts a stop to it. Guns are more lethal from longer range.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tftp on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:33AM
The vast majority of people will be unable to kill 9 people with a knife or a bat before one of the 9 puts a stop to it.
Have you ever heard about Oklahoma City bombing [wikipedia.org]?
Carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing killed 168 people[1] and injured more than 680 others.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings,[3][4] causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage.
The perpetrators had no guns. They had nothing except a moving van full of common fertilizer and common fuel. You'd wish they had guns - they'd kill fewer people that way.
What would someone like Dylann Roof do if he had no gun? Let's even assume that hunting guns, smooth bores and rifles, are also outlawed. Possibility #0: he'd buy a gun on the black market. Those exist in all countries of the world. Possibility #1: he'd make a firebomb out of a couple of canisters of gasoline. If the exits are blocked, the chance of survival is not very high. Possibility #2: he'd use a poison on something that victims eat, drink, or inhale. Possibility #3: he'd be killing his victims one by one, in dark alleys, with nothing more than a kitchen knife or a bat. Possibility #4: he'd drive a heavy SUV into a crowd. You can see already where that goes - the list of possibilities is endless.
People say that it's not guns that kill people because indeed it's someone's ill will that kills people. Guns may make it easier for a weakling like this Dylann Roof. But that does not change anything in principle - the real problem is that now and then you have a psycho in the society. That psycho can always get to controls of something large and dangerous and jam them, causing serious issues. You just have to accept that. The actual damage from such psychos is very small in comparison to, say, deaths from smoking. Jack the Ripper killed only five victims - but he is still remembered. This is illogical.
But imagine that your wish has materialized, and all guns in the country are gone. No criminal can get one, no matter what. You walk in a dark alley, and a few robbers are stopping you. Will you be safe now? Note that they have their fists, their bats, and their knives. Have you ever seen a knife wound? I do not wish you to see one, especially on yourself. A knife is a perfectly silent weapon; it can be easily manufactured; it requires no ammo; it is cheap; it leaves no ballistic fingerprints; it is light and small. Do you really prefer to meet a knife-wielding robber? A gunman cannot shoot you to scare you - it's all or nothing; if he fires, the robbery is over. An attacker with a knife can cut you piece by piece. An attacker with a sword can easily kill a hundred people in closed quarters.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:33AM
Have you ever heard of knives and blunt instruments? People will be nasty regardless of the means available.
Yeah, that's why many modern armies still just use swords.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:57AM
Yeah, that's why many modern armies still just use swords.
All modern armies still use knives. Special forces soldiers are trained to use them. Swords are not used anymore, but only because the warfare changed from face to face fight to a distance fight. This is not the case when a deranged killer wants to kill a whole family or, as it was in this case, a whole room of people.
You can say that a sword requires skill and training. This is only partially true. You'd have to be a skilled swordsman if you fight an equally skilled opponent - say, an experienced soldier - who also has a sword. If you are not just as good as he is, you will not survive. However a killer only needs to be better with a sword than an old woman who has only bare hands to protect herself. Other posters already mentioned a massacre in China that was done only with knives. Firearms are easier to use, but their removal from the scene does not change the fact that some people want to kill other people. Modern technology provides many ways to accomplish that even if there are no guns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:22AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @03:26PM
Yeah, that's why many modern armies still just use swords.
Hmm... I wonder why, when I was in Basic Training in 1987, they had us doing bayonet drills, then.
(And, actually, a big chunk of it was actually aggression training and not actually learning to fight with bayonet. But we had it, nonetheless.)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @03:33PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:30AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing [wikipedia.org]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting [wikipedia.org]
Same day, gues which one had 27 deaths, which one had 0.
But yeah, Guns!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:40PM
Red herring. So what that other objects can be used to kill people? What does that have to do with the fact that guns are deadly and have no purpose other than murder? So because I can kill somebody with a wrench, nuclear bombs should be legal for individuals to own?
(Score: 5, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:56AM
You and I are diametrically opposed. My solution, is to allow EVERYONE to have a gun. If anyone in that church had been armed, that person might have defended himself and all his friends. If EVERYONE had been armed, then our little White Supremacist freak might have killed one, or even two, before everyone else blew him into eternity.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pastor.shoots.assailant.in.church.gun.battle/45185.htm [christiantoday.com]
We are largely a nation of hoplophobes.
One of the more warped aspects of our hoplophobia is, even before the US became a nation, we decided that the black people are the most dangerous, and therefore they must be disarmed. Gun laws are applied differently, based on race, and they always have been. Hoplophobia and Negrophobia combined help to ensure that a white guy can kill a large number of black people when he decides to do so.
http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.uri.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1142%26context%3Dsrhonorsprog [duckduckgo.com]
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-long-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/ [theblaze.com]
Arm the masses. An armed society is a polite society. Everyone can be like me - i fear neither guns, nor black people.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 5, Touché) by SpockLogic on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:17AM
My solution, is to allow EVERYONE to have a gun.
Would you make it compulsory or just subsidize the purchase for "dem po' folk" Either way you have everlasting thanks from the bottom line of the American small arms manufacturing industry. I'm sure they will be putting a check in the mail soon.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:37AM
Neither. Top quality guns may be out of the reach of "dem po folk", but there are lesser quality guns available for the price of designer jeans and sneakers. No one needs financial assistance to purchase a firearm in this nation.
No one should be REQUIRED to own a weapon, any more than he should be prohibited from owning a weapon.
The crimes that need to be addressed is how a weapon is used. Owning a weapon should never be deemed a crime, in and of itself.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:22AM
> Everyone can be like me
Delusional? Ideological?
Considering the reason gun ownership is at all time highs is because of fear of the black man, I don't by your hoplophilia as based on anything more than circular reasoning.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:35AM
An armed society is a polite society.
Fear is not a synonym of polite.
i fear neither guns, nor black people.
You wouldn't see it just yet, but what you will fear are morons.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:00AM
Actually, fear and polite are near synonyms. The politest, sweetest people in the world have learned to be polite because they fear disapproval. There are people who fear an unkind response or a disapproving look more than I have ever feared a gun.
I already fear morons. Morons vote. Morons often win elections. Morons lobby for gun laws. Morons get driver's licenses every day. Morons abound on the internet. Morons are permitted to use telephonse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuXiK7-7iU [youtube.com]
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:21AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:50AM
"Fear of disapproval and fear of being shot are not equivalent."
Says who, exactly? Are you perhaps a professional psychologist? Fear is fear. Maybe you've interviewed women who have been trapped in psychologically abusive relationships? Do you dismiss those women as not really being abused, since they can't show you any scars?
"it doesn't play out like you've seen in the westerns."
I guess I should ask if your experiences with weapons is restricted to Hollywierd representations. Mine are not. I've often mentioned one of my own experiences in life. I stopped at a McDonald's in Manhattan late one night, to grab a burger, on my way out of town. The customer ahead of me, a young black male, went fishing in his saggy-baggy jeans for money to pay for his purchase, and dropped a pistol on the floor. He quickly picked the weapon up, and shoved it back in his pocket. This DID make me nervous, primarily because New York has such strict gun control laws.
Two mornings after, I stopped for breakfast in western Texas. I walked between vehicles in the parking lot with weapons prominently displayed in gun racks in the windows. When I stepped inside, I immediately identified three men who were wearing side arms. After visiting the men's room, and finding a seat, I scanned the crowd a little closer. About fifty customers scattered among the many tables and booths - and about half of them were armed. And, do you know what? I felt no fear, no anxiety in that environment. And - NOT all the armed people were "white" either. At least two Mexican-Americans and one African-American were armed. The "white" people may or may not have all been "white" anyway - this town has a strong Native American heritage.
Guns. I have zero fear of guns - it's PEOPLE that you need to fear. The gun-toting moron? You mean like Zimmerman? I'll take my chances on meeting his dumb ass.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:11AM
As for my experience I had a friend of mine at work pull a Derringer on me and go "stick em up!". Then he went "ha ha, kidding, it's not loaded". He then discovered a bullet in the chamber and said oops. If I wasn't frozen in fear I would have inserted the broom I was holding into him.
You want more of these dipshits armed, they're nowhere near as rare as you think. This is the same country that made Jerry Springer popular.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:52AM
You only need be a human being to see that the earth is flat, and that the sun, the moon, and the stars revolve around us.
Once again, fear is fear. Hoplophobia is not a very good position from which to make rational arguments. Your fear of morons is rational, your fear of weapons is not rational. Do something about the morons, and the weapons become a non-issue.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:59AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:44PM
You only need be a human being to see that the earth is flat, and that the sun, the moon, and the stars revolve around us.
The tide goes in, the tide goes out!!
Fucking brilliant in your idiocy.
(Score: 1) by Dogeball on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM
Do something about the morons
What? Kill them? Imprison them? How do you identify them (before they do something moronic in my vicinity with a lethal weapon)?
You keep using this word 'hoplophobia', i.e. an irrational fear of weapons. Please stop conflating a desire to keep guns away from morons (for which gun-control is prerequisite) with an irrational fear of the gun itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:32PM
You have to realize the word 'hoplophobia' does not mean an irrational fear of weapons.
It is a neologism specifically created as a tool to denigrate the arguments of people who argue for any form of gun control. It is no different from terms like feminazi and SJW - a convenient way for angry, slow-witted people to avoid having to test the mettle of their positions through engagement and debate.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday June 22 2015, @02:24AM
What's irrational about fearing an object designed to make it really easy for just about anybody to kill me? I grant you, a gun in the hands of a non-aggressive non-idiot is not anywhere close to as dangerous as that same gun in the hand of an idiot or violent aggressor, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. If I'm in a place with a gun, even in a seemingly safe place like a holster of a cop or security guard, you bet your tuchas I'm keeping an eye on it. In my basic observance of my environment for potential threats to my life, I'm now having to include "that guy with a gun goes crazy and starts shooting", or even "that guy with a gun tries to shoot the guy standing next to me (because the guy next to me was also trying to open fire) and hits me instead".
And yes, guns are more dangerous than knives or swords and such, because guns can kill me from much further away. That's why people have guns instead of carrying broadswords around.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:18PM
The difference between Canadian gun ownership and US gun ownership is that in Canada owning a gun is a privilege and the hoops you need to jump through to own one emphasizes the responsibility involved. In the USA, the emphasis on gun ownership as a right results in a large number of gun owners only caring about the power of gun ownership and not caring about the responsibility of owning a device designed to deal death.That difference in attitude (and filter on competency) is what causes the differences in level of abuse. Substitute Switzerland for Canada if you prefer and the same paragraph is true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:38PM
Your claim that they're the same is quite extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show some proof that they're the same if you expect us to buy such ridiculous crap.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @06:05PM
The gun-toting moron? You mean like Zimmerman? I'll take my chances on meeting his dumb ass.
And I suspect that if you aren't pounding his head into a concrete sidewalk, he might even come across as a nice guy who just wants to play cop.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:28AM
You may be right. It's more his style to threaten women and old men. Oh, but wait, I am an old man.
You need to take a serious look at Zimmerman. Trouble follows that man like a shadow. There is something seriously wrong with him. I sure hope you're not one of those who hold Zimmie up as a hero. Long before he met Martin, he was fired from a bouncer job for smashing some chick's face into a wall. He was in court for assaulting a law officer. He has since threatened an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, and a father-in-law with a weapon. He has a bit of a feud going on with some other guy, who has shot at him. Zimmie is a trouble magnet.
I suspect that one day, we'll read of Zimmerman eating his own damned gun. The man is unstable.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:32AM
You need to take a serious look at Zimmerman. Trouble follows that man like a shadow.
So what? Given how much of his troubles follow an incredibly terrible part of his life, I'm willing to give him some time to figure things out. After all, who else is going to have stuff like that published in national news? He reminds me of Rodney King, the guy who was brutally beaten up by four LA cops. That guy never really changed his stripes either and for a few years the press would report that sort of thing. Life moves on. Maybe Zimmerman will become a better man, maybe not.
But I know you wouldn't be taking your chances just meeting him on the street.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:18PM
You wouldn't see it just yet, but what you will fear are morons.
Morons with guns are a far less dangerous problem by orders of magnitude than morons with cars or a screwdriver.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:36PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @12:21AM
If by 'orders of magnitude' you mean '1/3rd'
I mean at least two orders of magnitude.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @01:43AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @01:47AM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @02:16AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @03:13PM
The difference between those two isn't anywhere near 100, it's more like 3.
Let us keep in mind that accidental gun deaths [washingtonpost.com] were around 600 in 2014. Meanwhile the number of deaths due to automobile accidents [wikipedia.org] were over 32,000 in the previous year. I drive a fair amount and I don't hang out with morons with guns. So there's the two or more orders of magnitude difference. Frankly, I think it's a lot more than two orders of magnitude hence my fear of morons with screwdrivers.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @03:30PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @04:02PM
I was going by the ~10,000 gun deaths the US racks up every year, which is not limited to accidental gun deaths.
I wasn't because most of those deaths are suicides or shootings of various categories of people that I don't belong to (such as gang members or people who live in high crime areas).
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @04:53PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @06:02PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @06:31PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @11:27PM
Do you believe there are too many morons behind the wheel?
Of course, I do. It's the price of a free society though.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 23 2015, @05:00AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:29PM
Then why are you okay with more morons with guns?
Because it's not a significant increase in harm or risk and as a result I get a freer society.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:56PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 23 2015, @11:45PM
Wouldn't lowering the age that people can get driver licenses do the same thing?
I don't know. Would it?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 24 2015, @12:11AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:36PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:26AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:29AM
Fine; after all it is your country, do what you please with it
Just make sure you stay inside it while holding your gun and make sure you enjoy your country alone; because it is very likely no tourist would enjoy the prospect of being shot in the back by a bored teenager [smh.com.au]
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:48AM
I suppose that you noticed the bored teen is being prosecuted? He should be facing the death penalty. Rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Those who violate other's rights are responsible, and in this case, the violator should be put to death. Eye for an eye, if you will.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:53AM
I suppose you noticed Chris Lane is still dead?
As a potentially-dead tourist, what happens with the shooter is irrelevant to me: why risk it in US, there are other places where I can die accidentally in more meaningful way (embracing a stingray, mauled by a lion through the car window, etc).
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:09AM
I'm glad that you recognize that you can die anywhere - including the safety of your own home. I suppose that you can do a statistical analysis to determine the likelihood of your being killed by any of the hazards you mention.
I'll grant that if I were not American, I probably wouldn't consider vacationing in the US, but that has more to do with invasive searches at the airport than anything else. I just can't imagine submitting to a rectal exam done by a skinny ferret faced freak who dropped out of high school, and his fat partner who sits across the room fondling his genitals as I'm "searched". But, I wouldn't be terribly worried about being shot to death by some bored retard after I got past the official government perverts at the airport.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:29AM
But for the others still willing - if everybody carries a gun in US and is prepared to use, I guarantee you the cost travel insurance in US is going to skyrocket.
You are sceptical, think won't happen? Another two just coming not two days after SC: West Phily - 7 wounded in random shooting [foxnews.com] and Detroit - 1 dead 9 wounded [huffingtonpost.com]. I don't know and I don't care what bias the reality has, these are facts.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:36AM
Yeah, and I have to say the grand canyon is a big meh. Yellowstone is pretty unique, and monument valley is cool, so you'd miss out on that. And new york is an amazing city--paris and tokyo don't even come close. But a person can have a perfectly satisfying vacation without ever stepping foot in america. It's a big wonderful world with lots of amazing stuff in it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:24AM
Have you ever wondered why when people like Obama say "other advanced countries" much of the rest of the world responds "what do you mean by 'other'?"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:03PM
Those who violate other's rights are responsible, and in this case, the violator should be put to death.
That doesn't follow.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:03PM
Yes - if you take a life unlawfully, your life is forfeit. I have no problem with 'an eye for an eye' laws. And, no, that philosophy won't make the entire world blind. Only those who commit the crimes will be blinded - or in this case, executed.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM
Yes - if you take a life unlawfully, your life is forfeit.
Unlawfully? So if it was lawful, then it's okay? If, for instance, the law said that the government could murder anyone it wanted, then it would be fine?
Also, again, that doesn't follow. That someone murdered someone else does not mean we need to give the government the power to murder captured people. Putting aside the countless 'mistakes' the government makes which result in the conviction of innocent people (a good reason to oppose the death penalty by itself), the power to murder people who have already been captured is a feature of big government, and one I cannot support.
It might not make the whole world blind, but it makes your government a mere group of thugs.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:23PM
Perhaps you've heard of the Magna Charta, and English Common Law.
Granted, lawmakers could pass a law that goes against established law - but many members of the public won't accept it. The sheeple might, but there will be those of us who fight it.
The people have the right to demand that the perpetrators of heinous crimes be put to death. I have problems with the standard of proof - that needs to be improved. "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" needs to be upped a little bit for capital cases. That standard needs to be reinforced with real, hard evidence, like DNA evidence. See, I can agree that to many mistakes have been made, and I'm happy to work toward correcting those mistakes. But - we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keep capital punishment, and ensure that it is only applied in truly heinous cases that are proven beyond doubt.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:46PM
The people have the right to demand that the perpetrators of heinous crimes be put to death.
They have the right to demand it, but the government also doesn't have to carry out their wishes. If it does, then it's just a group of thugs.
But - we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The death penalty, is, to me, not a baby, but a piece of garbage. I say throw it out, even absent any problems with the standards of proof.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:00AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20861342 [bbc.com]
http://www.psni.police.uk/index/updates/updates_campaigns/one_punch_awareness.htm [police.uk]
I'll agree that it's hard to kill 9 people with your hands (although a knife can work well).
Killing a single person physically isn't as hard as imagined.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:24AM
Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.
Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:50AM
Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.
Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?
Arguing with a turn of phrase does not somehow invalidate the original point.
If you have to devolve to literalistic pedantry to defend your position, you've already conceded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:35AM
Arguing with a turn of phrase does not somehow invalidate the original point.
Maybe people should be more clear.
If you have to devolve to literalistic pedantry to defend your position, you've already conceded.
Non sequitur. Someone doesn't 'concede' merely because they don't like your use of a language or don't assume they can guess what you're thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:46PM
I'm not sure about that. Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults, its fair to say that if somebody uses an interpretation that nobody else would just to suit their argument that they're equivocating, and the intentional usage of fallacies to support one's argument oly occurs when there are no valid ones left; with no valid arguments left, they have in essence conceded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:20AM
Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults
Also a non sequitur. They only concede when they say they concede, by definition. Unless you think you can read thoughts. These are just arbitrary 'rules' placed on debates that make no sense in reality.
I don't like it when theists tell me I actually believe in god in my heart. I wouldn't like it if someone told me I "conceded" because I violated some arbitrary debate rule they or others made up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:08AM
If somebody's argument is only supported by fallacies it is invalid by definition. No matter how long you continue pushing your invalid position, it will remain invalid. An invalid argument is one that has been conceded by default.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:35AM
Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?
Take a trip to Singapore or Malaysia.
Be sure to put a single bullet in your stuff where it will be easily discovered.
(You don't even need to have a gun.)
See you in a few decades.
Japan has an amazingly low firearm death rate.
Only the Yakuza (Mafia) has guns--and the tattoos and missing fingers make those guys very obvious to the cops, so carrying around guns routinely is definitely out.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:04AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland [wikipedia.org]
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:09AM
Pressed the wrong key!
It isn't just the number of guns, but the way they are controlled. And it also has a lot to do with the mental attitude of those who own the weapons.
However, all those countries that have stricter gun control laws than the US have fewer shootings per capita - who would have thought it? In the case of Switzerland, about 10% of the number in the USA.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:39AM
Getting rid of them should be pretty obvious to people who understand facts and data.
Not at all. Not everyone thinks the ends justify the means. I would oppose the NSA's mass surveillance even if it turned out to be effective, for example.
And what about that pesky 2nd amendment?
The only constitutional thing to do is to amend the constitution. But that should be obvious.
And how do we get Congress on board with this?
Congress doesn't actually care about freedom, so if you can make the idea more popular, it shouldn't be too hard.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:34AM
"eradicated the cause of mass shootings: Guns."
More nonsense. The cause of a killing is hatred, envy, greed, or some twisted glory, or fear. The gun is the preferred TOOL in many killings, but the TOOL didn't CAUSE the crime.
Load of garbage, you say? Yes, indeed, you posted a load of garbage. Please, refresh your acquaintance with the scientific method.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:21AM
I would add that those things you describe are systemic to other issues.
We do not have enough jobs. When you dont have a job you end up warehoused in this nation. You end up living off the gov with no way out. Eventually you feel trapped and have nothing to lose. We think we can tax our way to prosperity. Instead we let our political class let all of our jobs go to the lowest bidder.
I only as if you people say we can remove 1 of our rights which other ones will be up for grabs when it is politically convenient? Our constitution is designed to *limit* the government. Not make it bigger.
One of the freedoms I have is owning a gun. It is a freedom I do not engage in. But I defend.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Monday June 22 2015, @01:59AM
The cause of a killing is hatred, envy, greed, or some twisted glory, or fear. The gun is the preferred TOOL in many killings, but the TOOL didn't CAUSE the crime.
Someone called Rodion Raskol'nikov [wikipedia.org] killed two people with an ax. He was driven by a social idea that needed testing. It does not matter if he had a knife, an ax, or a silenced gun. If none of that is available, he'd pick a brick in the street. Removal of a tool from the society will only lead to criminals switching to other weapons. Humans had no trouble finding a weapon from the very moment they climbed down the tree and walked upright. And then weaker victims would have no means of resisting a strong man. Do we want to return to the times when personal strength was everything, and personal intelligence meant nothing? What can ten highly enlightened beings sitting at Starbucks do against ten less enlightened beings with bats and chains and knives? Are they OK with their own murder?
Quite a few people point fingers at Europe as an example of a peaceful and disarmed society. However they ignore the fact that the European society is not disarmed. It's still armed - but the arms belong to the government and are used only by the government. The idea of a benevolent, all-wise government is very attractive; the only problem is that such governments don't exist. People who surrender their arms to the government also accept that the government will now control their life - no matter how good or how bad that government is or may become in the future. Life of a modern slave is not all that bad. However a slave, being a property, will receive only minimal protection by the government. In UK, for example, a subject is expected to curl up and die instead of striking his assailant. This is because the government does not worry much about loss of a single worker ant. But the same government fears weapons in hands of those worker ants - especially if those ants get tired of being randomly killed off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:32AM
He can walk in with a bucket of gas and dump it. Then light it.
I'd rather be shot dead than burn to death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:56AM
And/or toss in a few grenades. And how about homemade explosives? Anyone with basic knowledge of chemistry can manufacture and use explosives. How about some nerve gas? How about crossbows? How about a crossbow fitted with an auto-loading mechanism running off a leaf blower motor? How about explosive arrows for the said crossbow?
Death by gunshot is better than any of those methods (and many more).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shortscreen on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:55AM
Governments kill far, far more people than crazed lone gunmen do.
I say the govs disarm first, then the rest of us can consider it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thesis on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:12AM
Gun bans or restrictions do not lead to a reduction in violent crime rates. Violent crime rates rise in such societies, and it has been well documented. But please, don't let facts and statistics get in the way of the government ingrained pedagogy of a world seen through rose colored glasses.
PDF warning: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Australia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf [tripod.com]
Homicide weapon statistics as provided by the Australian government:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html [aic.gov.au]
There is even more statistical data available to anyone on the net from other countries, feel free to look them up. It is for you to decide as to what numbers thrown about by the governments and the media are cherry picked, and if and how they are manipulated.
Bans and restrictions only lead to a change in the tools used to commit violent crimes. It does not address the root of the problem, the persons commiting the crimes. With that being said, people kill people, regardless of the tools used...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:27AM
The Rwandan genocide was mostly carried out with machetes and clubs. Guns are not a requirement for mass murder.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @03:41AM
Guns are not a requirement for mass murder.
Nobody is making that argument.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:06PM
I think a person can kill people just fine without guns. See the below for just a handful of examples:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29633/6-infamous-arsonists-and-how-they-got-caught [mentalfloss.com]
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gidds on Monday June 22 2015, @03:36PM
This story may have everything to do with SN, but I really can't tell, because I've no idea what it's about!
The name of a city, and a collection of 31 apparently random links, doesn't make a story, in my book. I'm not an American, and although I hear some news reports of US stories, I don't follow them closely enough for the mere mention of a city to give me any clue what on earth this is about (if indeed it is about any one topic); neither do I have enough time to plough through 31 separate links to find out what on earth the submitter actually wanted to discuss but couldn't be bothered to tell us...
Is there a simple explanation?
[sig redacted]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:48AM
(Score: 1) by News2Tor on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:18AM
Dylann Roof is spreading all over 4chan
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/46688472/dylann-roof-is-spreading-all-over-4chan-even-in [4chan.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:27AM
Did you really just link to /pol/? How is that relevant or even credible at all?
Why is this article on the front page? Nothing to do with tech, science. C'mon soylentals.
Leave politics out of this site, please.
(Score: 2) by fleg on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:54AM
>Leave politics out of this site, please.
chortle, you must be new here.
oh, and read the FAQ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:38AM
theres this computer game. it has gun vending machines.
whenever you use one theres this russian accent guy going:
GUNS GUNS GUNS.
i can hear this everytime i read a story like this on the internet.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:55AM
All true, except:
Soon in the schools in Texas [newsthump.com]
----
* hoax [truthrevolt.org], but... come on... without knowing what "Daily currant" is about, the piece of "news" seems credible enough for a non-usian.
The one with schools in Texas should be self-evident however.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:18AM
Roof's website has been publicized - www.thelastrhodesian.com
That site is either overwhelmed, or it has been taken down - I simply cannot load the site. But the content of that site has been archived
http://web.archive.org/web/20150620140218/http://lastrhodesian.com/data/documents/103600296_19.zip [archive.org] That zip file contains photos and images.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150620135047/http://lastrhodesian.com/data/documents/rtf88.txt [archive.org] This separate page contains the text from lastrhodesian
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:30AM
NOTE: Three attempts to download that zip with my browser have resulted in corrupted zip files. Trying again with wget, and it's exceedingly slow. I'm looking at an ETA of 60 to 70 minutes for a little 110 MB file. Sucks . . .
What sucks even worse is, I expect to see nothing worth the effort of downloading.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:28AM
One or two links... Don't make me go back to /.!!!!
Fuck!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:22AM
Jesus, can you even walk and chew gum at the same time?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:51AM
Stop whining. There COULD HAVE been a script that opened all those links in your browser for you. Bitch, bitch, bitch - it's more common that people ASK FOR citations, than they whine about to many citations.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:13AM
Nobody is making you do anything. If you go, it will be your choice. You can always just skip the story and wait for the next one. And, while waiting - MAKE A SUBMISSION!
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:52AM
Poor submissions don't just chase people away. They keep new users from coming back. The active users has dropped since the start. I wonder why.
The submission looks so "Spam" like. This story would get many post no matter what links you put up. To put up all you can find is just stupid! Editor is your job not submitter of crap. Edit out the crap and let the good thru. Take some online courses and better yourself.
Oh and maybe I wanted to read/comment about this story but the submission was so "out there" that it was useless. So "just skip it" is a cop out on your part as an editor. Never tell your readers to skip a story they might just skip the site instead. Or fork it.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:11AM
My, we are a little angry today.
This site depends upon submissions. This one is not to your liking. So submit one that is, please. We are editors - we edit your submissions. I would much rather have any one of a dozen more suitable stories going out today, but unless you send them in then it will not happen.
Yes, I know. And in the beginning we had over 25 good quality stories minimum each day to find about 12 - 15 that would hit the front page. Sometimes we would have over 40 per day. More recently that figure has dropped drastically. Rather than wasting your time complaining about the poor submissions, fill that time by making a good quality sub which will raise both the quality of the site and attract more people to join our community. You know that is what is required - your comment confirms it.
Get off your high horse, AC, and use some of your writing skills to make a submission, please. Furthermore, I am not the editor of this submission - take your advice elsewhere.
There you go again, telling others what do. You do not have to read every story. There is nothing written in any rules that say that you do. Read the ones that you like and 'Skip this story!'. But you do have to support this site if you want it to succeed.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:50AM
Why would you post this as an AC? If you really mean it, put your name to it. We're grownups, we can take it.
But yes, this is a charge that's been levelled at the site since the beginning, and it was too at slashdot from the very beginning. It's also been answered about 5 trillion times in the same way that janrinok just politely did.
Me, I like discussing events like these with intelligent people. It's also interesting so see darker sides emerge from posters who mostly say things I really like. People are complex.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:53AM
2 seconds after my wife told me the first plane hit the world trade center I said, "why can't they hit congress and do us all a favor?" I would put that out to the Roofs of the world. Go after the torturers at the CIA and peeping toms at the NSA and the Wall Street bankers and I will vote to acquit you.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:50PM
We've gone from "won't someone think of the children???" to "won't someone think of sweet baby jesus???" Let's take guns from the crazy folks and criminals. I'm sure that's a fool proof plan as they'll all lay them down. No, I'm being sarcastic. You'd have to ban guns for everyone. Criminals would comply at that point because everyone would be treated fairly. Criminals don't like unfair treatment.
Fuck that. I've defended my home and family with a gun in the past. Shots were fired. You can pry it from my cold dead fingers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:02PM
Criminals would not comply. There would be an underground black market for guns run by... guess what? Criminals. No form of gun control would work, thugs will always have them. Disclaimer: I don't own guns, my neighborhood is safe, my neighbors on both sides are cops, don't need guns here. I wouldn't move my family into an area where I would need to buy a gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:52PM
"Its not a perfect solution" is no reason to not try. Fires burn out, does that mean you shouldn't light one to cook your food and keep warm? No insulators or conductors are perfect, does that mean we shouldn't bother using them? Your logic is terrible.
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:55PM
A lot of political angles being taken from this: racism, terrorism, guns, drugs, psychological care. I'm not one of those "the south will rise again" inbred cousins, but what the fuck does this have to do with the confederate flag? Shut the fuck up, Romney. Know what Romney and the confederate flag have in common? They're both losers.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:42PM
...but what the fuck does this have to do with the confederate flag?
It's inappropriate to fly a flag like that after a tragedy like this. In nerd terms it's worse than serving Romulan Ale on Khitomer Day.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday June 22 2015, @04:18PM
Oh, but wearing your brown service jacket on Unification day is totally kosher? Freaking nerdy double-standards...<sarcasm>
;^)
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:29AM
Every time I see a confederate flag I think Sherman just did not do a good enough job.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Monday June 22 2015, @10:38PM
Lots of great debate, but IMHO there is far more data supporting the position of eliminating guns than there are for promoting their proliferation. The idea of every American armed is, to me, utterly horrifying. I know a lot of people who should never be permitted to own a weapon - arming everyone implies arming ex-cons, the mentally unstable, and Alzheimer's patients. No thank you. I'd far rather live in a gun-free world than a free gun world.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.