o rly?
South Carolina's Confederate Flag Not Lowered to Half-Staff After Massacre
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/c...ag-not-lowered-half-mast-after-church-n378316
Terrorism in Charleston, SC
- Thread starter HighlandHomie
- Start date
o rly?
South Carolina's Confederate Flag Not Lowered to Half-Staff After Massacre
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/c...ag-not-lowered-half-mast-after-church-n378316
Do you think improved mental health of people in the in the U.S. would lead to less of these situations as well as less racism, and all "isms" for that matter?
--
No I don't own a gun. No I don't plan on buying a gun. Yes I still believe the citizens of the U.S. should have the right to bear arms despite all the wackos doing stupid things like this and laws to stop citizens from owning them would be as effective as the "War on Drugs".
--
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
1) You think the entire military would attack their own citizens? I think 50% would be an incredibly optimistic number.
2) The chances of winning a fight make no difference on the constitutional right that we have to bear arms. If we take that right away, what's next?
1) Gun ownership has decreased since the 1970's, yet somehow we have a lot more shooting like this (or they're just more publicized). So why are we trying to blame guns here? People are the problem. Take guns away and they'll find something else. You're not solving problems by taking them away.
2) You can be a racist and not want to kill somebody. I'm not advocating for racism, I think it's a sick belief, but wanting to kill multitudes of people is a sign of illness. Those aren't normal thoughts.
3) How are you going to get rid of guns? An outright ban will start a civil war, waiting periods accomplish nothing, what else do you suggest?
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Would the ****storm be justified?
Because of the number of people killed? I don't think that's a good way to define a terrorist attack. Terrorists have an agenda. They use violence in order to market their ideology and/or force outcomes they desire. It has nothing to do with number of people killed. The New Town shooting wasn't a terror attack. The shooter didn't have an agenda aside from spreading pain and misery. This isn't either. We should try and avoid Orwellian wordsmithing that only serves to comfort us, while robbing important concepts from their actual meaning.
That depends on what side came out on top...
I don't think we have evidence to believe this was a terrorist attack. I think all we have is evidence that this guy hated "them darn N***ers".
Which makes this a hate crime, as he was doing it out of hate, not to inspire terror.
Adding more links:
https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-suspect/
Last edited:
CNN is reporting he said he wanted to start a race war. If that's not terror I don't know what is.
Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Hate Crime: a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group.
I guess there is an argument for both. Does the article mention why he wanted a war? or what he'd get out of it?
https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/
Sounds more prejudiced than politically motivated to me, but there's still the argument... is there a reason these two would be mutually exclusive?
Sounds more prejudiced than politically motivated to me, but there's still the argument... is there a reason these two would be mutually exclusive?
It's pretty clearly terrorism.