Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That guy had a lot of crap in his head. That's the main reason, not a gun (but of course, it was too easy to obtain a gun for him too.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Now it'll be used racially since he was taken alive....

Which is ridiculous, considering that the DC Snipers were child-killing black Muslims and they were taken in alive...

Common sense doesn't matter, only mass media coverage and opinion

This.

I'm not saying it was racial he was taken alive. Just saying someone is going to bring it up because it's easy to sensationalize. Not saying it's going to be valid (I doubt it is and will be 99% sure of it once we see the circumstances) but I am saying someone will bring up a black man died being apprehended for selling cigarettes and a white kid who killed 9 black people was taken alive.

The vast majority of people like this are taken alive unless they suicide by cop. But that won't stop our media

 Alex C wrote:
He can always resign.

Wouldn't it be better to not have as many mass shootings instead? Hell, I'm not the President and I'm tired of this kind of lunacy.

I personally feel our countries would be better off without the type of mass media coverage we have. Some girl gets kicked out of class for wearing provocative clothing and the media makes her into some kind of hero instead of a rule disobeying tramp.

Some guy gets gunned down because he is assaulting a police officer and the media turns it into a racially motivated murder.

I am not saying these things don't happen (the racially motivated murder) but it would be nice if the media didn't jump to conclusions before the facts were released.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
He can always resign.

Wouldn't it be better to not have as many mass shootings instead? Hell, I'm not the President and I'm tired of this kind of lunacy.

From a June 15th article:

Over the past weekend, from 3:00 p.m. Friday through 6:00 a.m. Monday, at least 24 people were wounded in shootings. Besides the three gun-related murders over the weekend, there was one homicide resulting from a stabbing. The violence, according to CBS News, covers a range of ages – from teens to a person in his 60s. Not much is known about the shooters when they are still at large, obviously, but as for the victims, some are said to be gang members while others are innocent bystanders standing around or sitting in cars.

Seems 'mass shootings', as heinous as they are, are not the real problem when it comes to violent gun deaths. The vast majority of criminal gun deaths are not 'mass shootings'.

http://www.examiner.com/article/chicago-shootings-homicides-skyrocket-june-11-of-last-12-days-had-murders

I personally feel our countries would be better off without the type of mass media coverage we have

I'm not sure it's possible now. Like in USSR before 1980s?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
He can always resign.

Wouldn't it be better to not have as many mass shootings instead? Hell, I'm not the President and I'm tired of this kind of lunacy.

He said he was tired of making the speeches. If he'd feth off, he wouldn't have to.

But that would leave Biden in charge *shudder*

He said he was tired of making the speeches. If he'd feth off, he wouldn't have to.

No, he said he was TIRED of making speeches about the aftermath of a mass shooting, and not being able to do anything about it.

Example. If an American embassy is attacked overseas, or US troops targeted in Iraq or Afghanistan, then Obama can say fire the cruise missiles, or send in the airstrikes against the training camps, or Joe Biden can meet a foreign minister etc etc.

He knows what he can do in response, and 9 times out of 10, he can actually implement a response. It's different for these types of incidents. They're complex problems that require tough solutions.

But I'm not going to lecture Americans on what they should do. Only Americans can solve American problems.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He knows what he can do in response, and 9 times out of 10, he can actually implement a response. It's different for these types of incidents. They're complex problems that require tough solutions.

And a shooting done locally by an individual should never be a federal matter (unless a federal judge/agent was the victim or it took place on a federal installation) , let alone one POTUS should be able to act upon. At most, providing federal LE support to forensics and other aspects of the investigation IF the counties/municipalities/states request it is a good role. If the state prosecutors decide it is beneficial to seek federal charges, then another federal role opens up. But I suspect South Carolina has plenty of laws on the books which will prove appropriate to charge this crap bag, and provide proper sentencing if he is convicted.

Obama can't really do anything to stop these sorts of shootings. The desire to go out and shoot a whole bunch of people like that is likely rooted in pretty deep social or cultural problems. Even if the laws were changed, the culture would not be. That's how I see it, anyhow.

I think it became a Federal case because he fled across state lines. That IIRC automatically means the FBI gets involved.

 Da Boss wrote:
Obama can't really do anything to stop these sorts of shootings.

No one can, but we should all be tired of violence regardless of whether we are President or not. It just seems odd that if our choice is less people shooting other people and "the President can feth off" that people would choose the latter over the former as being better. It seems less like being upset at the shooting and more about hating the President, which is fairly sad.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it became a Federal case because he fled across state lines. That IIRC automatically means the FBI gets involved.

FBI was already involved and so was the DOJ. DOJ is trying to say it was a hate crime which they are allowed to prosecute and the FBI is in it because SC asked for help finding the bugger

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it became a Federal case because he fled across state lines. That IIRC automatically means the FBI gets involved.

Maybe. There are many many cases where two states work it out (really the majority). NC will have an extradition relationship with SC. If it was a kidnapping and the victim was moved across state lines the feds are a lot more likely to step in. In this case, there won't be much justification for that. Of course, DOJ has stepped in a lot of places they should not over the years...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it became a Federal case because he fled across state lines. That IIRC automatically means the FBI gets involved.

FBI was already involved and so was the DOJ. DOJ is trying to say it was a hate crime which they are allowed to prosecute and the FBI is in it because SC asked for help finding the bugger

Help in the man hunt and investigation is different from SC giving up the prosecution.

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it became a Federal case because he fled across state lines. That IIRC automatically means the FBI gets involved.

Maybe. There are many many cases where two states work it out (really the majority). NC will have an extradition relationship with SC. If it was a kidnapping and the victim was moved across state lines the feds are a lot more likely to step in. In this case, there won't be much justification for that. Of course, DOJ has stepped in a lot of places they should not over the years...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it became a Federal case because he fled across state lines. That IIRC automatically means the FBI gets involved.

FBI was already involved and so was the DOJ. DOJ is trying to say it was a hate crime which they are allowed to prosecute and the FBI is in it because SC asked for help finding the bugger

Help in the man hunt and investigation is different from SC giving up the prosecution.

was simply pointing out that both the FBI and DOJ have been involved from the start

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He knows what he can do in response, and 9 times out of 10, he can actually implement a response. It's different for these types of incidents. They're complex problems that require tough solutions.

And a shooting done locally by an individual should never be a federal matter (unless a federal judge/agent was the victim or it took place on a federal installation) , let alone one POTUS should be able to act upon. At most, providing federal LE support to forensics and other aspects of the investigation IF the counties/municipalities/states request it is a good role. If the state prosecutors decide it is beneficial to seek federal charges, then another federal role opens up. But I suspect South Carolina has plenty of laws on the books which will prove appropriate to charge this crap bag, and provide proper sentencing if he is convicted.

I was thinking more along the lines of passing legislation on gun control, background checks being tightened up, that sort of thing.

As a matter of interest, where does South Carolina stand on the death penalty? Do they have it or not?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Obama can't really do anything to stop these sorts of shootings.

No one can, but we should all be tired of violence regardless of whether we are President or not. It just seems odd that if our choice is less people shooting other people and "the President can feth off" that people would choose the latter over the former as being better. It seems less like being upset at the shooting and more about hating the President, which is fairly sad.

I agree, I was more making the point that Obama is probably pretty frustrated that as the most powerful man in the world, he can do so little to change this. His speech makes that frustration clear, and I think discussing him other than that is a bit of a sideline.

I know right. If only it weren't a constitutional republic but a nice banana republic instead.

SGTPozy wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
This is why owning firearms should be illegal

That's a little extreme, don'tcha' think. I mean, you can own firearms in the UK and Japan*, it's just a lot more restricted than here.

*IIRC

True but (IMO) it's still wrong. Out of curiosity why is it that many Americans like to own firearms? I personally don't see the appeal or need to do so :L

WELL... for hunting, pleasure use, and self defense... Main reason why we have the "right to bear arms" Is to defend ourselves from our own government if it turned against us like taking away our rights and freedoms...

I think its hard for British people to get that (no offence)

 zombiekila707 wrote:
for hunting, pleasure use, and self defense...

I don't think you should rub yourself with a firearm like that.

Ask catholics in Northern Ireland how defending yourself from your own government goes. I think the British have more direct experience of that than the Americans, which is why they are less ideological about it.

 Frazzled wrote:
I know right. If only it weren't a constitutional republic but a nice banana republic instead.

What's your beef with Banana republics? Great weather, dictators always have great uniforms, and the chance to spout anti-American propaganda

NBC is reporting this scumbag is captured.

 Ahtman wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
for hunting, pleasure use, and self defense...

I don't think you should rub yourself with a firearm like that.

Thats why its critical that your firearm has just the right amount of gun oil.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He knows what he can do in response, and 9 times out of 10, he can actually implement a response. It's different for these types of incidents. They're complex problems that require tough solutions.

And a shooting done locally by an individual should never be a federal matter (unless a federal judge/agent was the victim or it took place on a federal installation) , let alone one POTUS should be able to act upon. At most, providing federal LE support to forensics and other aspects of the investigation IF the counties/municipalities/states request it is a good role. If the state prosecutors decide it is beneficial to seek federal charges, then another federal role opens up. But I suspect South Carolina has plenty of laws on the books which will prove appropriate to charge this crap bag, and provide proper sentencing if he is convicted.

I was thinking more along the lines of passing legislation on gun control, background checks being tightened up, that sort of thing.

As a matter of interest, where does South Carolina stand on the death penalty? Do they have it or not?

I know what you were getting at. And my answer still fits.

South Carolina does have the death penalty, but it is rarely carried out even when a perp is given death as a penalty.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I know right. If only it weren't a constitutional republic but a nice banana republic instead.

What's your beef with Banana republics? Great weather, dictators always have great uniforms, and the chance to spout anti-American propaganda

Banana envy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He knows what he can do in response, and 9 times out of 10, he can actually implement a response. It's different for these types of incidents. They're complex problems that require tough solutions.

And a shooting done locally by an individual should never be a federal matter (unless a federal judge/agent was the victim or it took place on a federal installation) , let alone one POTUS should be able to act upon. At most, providing federal LE support to forensics and other aspects of the investigation IF the counties/municipalities/states request it is a good role. If the state prosecutors decide it is beneficial to seek federal charges, then another federal role opens up. But I suspect South Carolina has plenty of laws on the books which will prove appropriate to charge this crap bag, and provide proper sentencing if he is convicted.

I was thinking more along the lines of passing legislation on gun control, background checks being tightened up, that sort of thing.

As a matter of interest, where does South Carolina stand on the death penalty? Do they have it or not?

I know what you were getting at. And my answer still fits.

South Carolina does have the death penalty, but it is rarely carried out even when a perp is given death as a penalty.

Churches are gun free zones in South Carolina, except by express permission of the pastor.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
for hunting, pleasure use, and self defense...

I don't think you should rub yourself with a firearm like that.

Thats why its critical that your firearm has just the right amount of gun oil.

Needs LOTS of gun oil...

But seriously! It is lots of fun shooting cans or other targets (in a safe and controlled environment)

 Da Boss wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Obama can't really do anything to stop these sorts of shootings.

No one can, but we should all be tired of violence regardless of whether we are President or not. It just seems odd that if our choice is less people shooting other people and "the President can feth off" that people would choose the latter over the former as being better. It seems less like being upset at the shooting and more about hating the President, which is fairly sad.

I agree, I was more making the point that Obama is probably pretty frustrated that as the most powerful man in the world, he can do so little to change this. His speech makes that frustration clear, and I think discussing him other than that is a bit of a sideline.

Yep.

Sadly, the NRA has way more political clout than the freaking President of the United States thanks to their methods of fearmongering and the people that support the NRA vote with emotion rather than intelligence.

 Frazzled wrote:
CNN and Austin news reporting he has been caught.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/us/charleston-south-carolina-shooting/index.html

Fox reporting he was caught in North Carolina

Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old suspect in the deadly shooting Wednesday night at a Charleston church that left nine people dead, was captured in Shelby, North Carolina, which is over 240 miles northwest from the crime scene, reports say.

Good catch by the police. That story reads like this guy is either part of a hate group or completely off his rocker. Either way, he's a jackass and I'm glad they caught him.

What a horrible thing to do to people and their families.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Obama can't really do anything to stop these sorts of shootings.

No one can, but we should all be tired of violence regardless of whether we are President or not. It just seems odd that if our choice is less people shooting other people and "the President can feth off" that people would choose the latter over the former as being better. It seems less like being upset at the shooting and more about hating the President, which is fairly sad.

I agree, I was more making the point that Obama is probably pretty frustrated that as the most powerful man in the world, he can do so little to change this. His speech makes that frustration clear, and I think discussing him other than that is a bit of a sideline.

Yep.

Sadly, the NRA has way more political clout than the freaking President of the United States thanks to their methods of fearmongering and the people that support the NRA vote with emotion rather than intelligence.

You got that backwards. Its gun control advocates who vote with emotion and not intelligence, since the facts don't support their views.