DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Shooting suspect in custody after Charleston church massacre

did you watch the videos?

they argued the same thing.

so what you're saying is, because criminal activity happens, there's no point in making gun laws.

ok.

Y'all can ignore everything I said. Fine.

However, I also have a right to say it.

Stay the hell out SC w/your racist views.

i think your state has that area covered.

How is raising relevant points racist? What about Swish's comments says he is racist? Why are you even insinuating I am racist? I'd like facts, please.

You know, Swish..........I like you, but you need to open your mind a bit.

I couldn't stand the politics of this state before I got here. I still can't. The government is screwed up, roayally.

However, I am a teacher and I meet a wide range of people everyday.

I am trying to provide an honest portrayal of what the PEOPLE of SC think and you demean my opinion.

I love Ohio and that is my state. I feel I am a visitor in SC. I don't like the decisions the government makes, especially in regards to education.

However, I have witnessed first-hand how the people of SC interact w/one another.

You have the right to ignore what I am telling you, but I ain't backing down on this one. The residents of SC, both black and white, have handled this w/class and compassion.

It's wrong to make a blanket statement about a state because one twisted lunatic committed a horrible act. Assigning stereotypical generalizations about any one group of people because of the solitary act of a nut-case is not being very open minded.

There are evil people everywhere. There are plenty of racists in every state. I am just trying to tell you that in SC, the blacks and whites actually get along fairly well. I teach them. I see it everyday. You can dismiss my opinion w/more hateful comments, but I am here to say I am impressed by how the residents of SC have handled this situation.

Expounding on that........I am most proud of the black residents. They didn't riot. They didn't go off and preach hate and retribution. They were horrified. But, they did NOT blame ALL white people for the act of a solitary killer.

I think this speaks volumes to how blacks and whites view people in this state. You aren't hearing any SC resident scream: "Burn the -------- down." Nope, not here. It's let's pray together and start the healing process.

You might not like that because it goes against your ongoing campaign of trying to separate the races and promotion of hate, but it's what I have seen.

What? He talks about whites having to answer for this?

Why?

It was one white person. Not a group.

You guys can choose to ignore what I wrote about the PEOPLE of SC. That's fine. That is your right.

But, I know the truth and excuse the hell out of me if I interject a post or two praising the residents of SC into a thread w/hundreds of posts that want to concentrate on separating the races.

lol.

i guess you missed the post where i said it was a conversation me and DC had where he said all muslims should denounce events everytime something bad happens, and i said "well by that logic, all whites should..."

GOOD job cherry picking though.

anyways, that you think i'm trying to separate races and promote racism sounds just lets me know that you understand very little from where i'm coming from.

next time you tell somebody to open their mind, look in the mirror.

I got through the first couple pages then jumped to the end so I could reply, so I missed your original post about life in SC (I'll go back and read it), but from what you've posted at the end here, I'd echo your experiences here in NC. While I work in one of the more metropolitan cities in the state, I live in a pretty rural county... like old folks sitting on the porch and roadside country stores rural. Black, white... people by and large get along just fine. Its amazing how people get along when you are willing to use basic manners. I haven't travelled throughout the South so my opinion admittedly isn't well qualified, but I think the South has made more progress than people outside of it give it credit for. About the only thing that I can point at to support that claim is look at where these race motivated riots are happening... in the North.


To some general points I saw initially:

-UK.. might have lower rates of GUN violence, but they have higher rates of aggravated assaults.. knives, etc.
-Violent crime in the U.S. has actually been on the decline the last 20 years... this curiously coincides with the 'militarization' of the police over 20 yrs... but I think it has more to do with policing transitioning toward the 'broken windows' model and community policing models. They are both predicated on pro-active policing. I was just listening to a guy on Coast to Coast w/ George Nori last night and he had a guy on who referenced a study done about the causes of reduced violent crime. Wish I remembered the author's name, but he found that additional gun restrictions had virtually zero impact on reducing crime (I'm pretty certain even the govt's own studies have shown that). There were only 2 factors that showed to have a noticeable impact 1) a cop was in the area and 2) less restrictive gun laws. Don't think that's true? The U.S. cities with the highest murder rates and shootings also have the most restrictive gun laws.

-There is more than 'anecdotal' evidence that having a gun reduces your chances of being a victim. FBI stats show that between 800,000 and 2 million times a year a person successfully keeps from becoming a victim with the use of a firearm, whether its actually shooting the suspect, or just drawing and displaying it. Even if you take the low end at 800k, I can't think of any other place 800k would be considered 'anecdotal'.

-Who carries a gun to church? Lots of people I know. My neighbor goes to a pretty big church. He was telling me that they have two levels of security during services, all volunteers, armed and unarmed. The armed guys are usually current or former law enforcement. He said that the church prefers only those guys with that qualification carry, but they wouldn't prevent or ask that anyone doesn't. I think all but maybe 1 of the mass shootings that have occurred over the last 7 or more years, actually occurred in legally designated "Gun Free Zones".

-Mental illness vs. thug... the reasons why those labels are put out there are IMO the same. Modern liberalism simply refuses to acknowledge that Evil exists. I think it has to do with, if you admit Evil exists, then Good must as well, and what differentiates the two is a defined morality (which IS subjective, but that's beside the point). By labeling someone as either, it deflects responsibility and accountability. Oh, he's mentally ill? Its not completely his fault then because he didn't fully know what he was doing. Oh he's a 'thug'? You can't label him that because he's only doing that because he's the product of his oppressive environment.

The problem I have with the concept of Hate Crimes, is the fact that they are never applied equally. I think his racist beliefs absolutely speak to his motives, but I really don't see how this is any worse than if he shot and killed 9 white people in a church. In any event he knowingly, and willingly killed 9 innocent people.

In any event, he was caught. The key now is to have enough patience so that no corners are cut in the process. Part of being able to claim the moral high ground is having the patience to seek Justice in the proper way.

I've been reading justifications for no problem with buying tons of guns by posting various comparisons of gun death rates between USA and other countries.

From what I've often read on here before there's a strong belief the U.S. is the greatest country in the in all things. Why not be the greatest in cutting these events?

No matter how you measure it the status-quo sucks bad and the correlation between the NRA's political lobbying for the incredible number of guns in this country is undeniably the direct cause for the U.S. leading this particular death rate.

Using the second amendment to allow ourselves to become the most armed citizens is similar to using the bible to justify bigotry. I refuse to believe this is what the founding fathers intended. There are more and more people believing the same.

Actually, upon further consideration, I think I need to amend my comment about liberalism being behind the labeling of mental illness and thug.

Its not so much that, as it is society in general that has become sheltered to reality. Everyone has become an armchair psychiatrist. Think about how many times someone claims someone else is acting 'bipolar'? Because people have sheltered themselves from reality, they don't truly understand what they see. By calling something 'mental illness' or 'thug behavior', they are using their limited knowledge to rationalize what they are seeing in to terms that they (think) they understand.

In the last few days I've talked to 3 associates in Charleston and they have echoed your sentiment. To a man they all said the same thing, they are disgusted with way this has turned political, though they understand that everything turns political... they are also rather proud of how the community has responded, which is much better than the national response..

So then you are saying there is nothing more that we can do?

man they are sure treating this coward good in SC.


Cops bought Burger King for Charleston suspect Dylann Roof after his arrest

After reading your post I have to ask who did these studies? What your quoting I really have a hard time with studies that say these things.

Meanwhile the rest of the western world laughs at us and are scared to come here because of the violence that comes about from to many guns.

But let me ask this, are you quoting this based on it matching your own beliefs?

BTW more often then not when you dig into who did these studies and where the funding came from to do them it involves the NRA which is nothing more then the arm of the Gum Manufactures. I seriously question the independent nature of what your stating as fact.

The UK Numbers Aren't Really Correct Either:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

Per 100,000 people:

*Note UK is defined here as England and Wales, I have added Scotland and Northern Ireland separately
Rapes:

Sweden = 58.8
USA = 28.6
England/Wales = 27.7
Northern Ireland = 23.6
Scotland = 17.0
France = 16.2
Germany = 8.9
Netherlands = 8.8
Italy = 7.6
Spain = 4.5
Portugal = 3.5

Robbery:

Spain = 1188
Portugal = 192
England/Wales = 137
France = 181
USA = 133
Italy = 108
Sweden = 103
Netherlands=84
Northern Ireland = 74
Germany = 60
Scotland = 48

Robbery:

Spain = 1188
Portugal = 192
England/Wales = 137
France = 181
USA = 133
Italy = 108
Sweden = 103
Netherlands=84
Northern Ireland = 74
Germany = 60
Scotland = 48

Assault:

Scotland = 1487
Sweden = 987
England and Wales = 730
Germany = 630
Netherlands = 352
Portugal = 312
France = 310
USA = 262
Spain = 177
Italy = 110
Northern Ireland = 90

Burglary:

Sweden = 1029
England and Wales = 986
Northern Ireland = 717
USA = 715
France = 513
Portugal = 463
Scotland = 458
Germany = 456
Netherlands = 428
Spain = 420
Italy = 190


So really, the USA is just about in the middle of every other criminal activity, as other European Countries. This also implies that we are no more/less violent than countries in Europe.

The only thing that sticks out, is that we are so much better at killing each other - (like way way better at killing each other) - I wonder why that is?


*** It's worth noting that for some of these minor crimes, different countries may use different definitions to classify the crimes, leading to larger variance than something like murder, where the definition is fairly robust.

I'm saying everything that has been done does not work. Are you saying we need more laws that won't work either? Are you saying we need more laws to limit the rights of the law abiding? Haven't I been told time and time again on these boards one can't legislate morality? Well killing is a moral issue, violence a societal problem.

GREAT.

so nothing works, so lets not change the status quo.

hell, none of the drug laws work, might as well get rid of those too, while we're at it.

nothing wrong with our country. no racism, no crazy gun culture, we're A-OK here.

I have. They intended militias to protect from foreign invasion.

The problem we are having is that you and I have totally different interpretations. We're always going to have different interpretations of what the 2nd amendment intended.

Could this be a good area to look to when trying to lower gun related crimes in America?
--------------------------------------------------

The shooting of 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Mo., police officer has led to a broader discussion of race in America. PunditFact has recently fact-checked several claims centering on race.

No. 1 cause of death for young black men

Fox pundit Juan Williams recently expounded upon a column he wrote for the Wall Street Journal in which he described "thuggish behavior" as creating a culture of violence in African-American communities.

"The violent behavior of young black men and the police response have become a window on racial fears," Williams wrote. On Fox News Sunday Williams said, "On the black side of this equation, I think there’s fear of intimidation, harassment being legitimized by the fact that there is a high rate of crime, especially among young black men.

"No. 1 cause of death, young black men 15 to 34 — murder," Williams said. "Who’s committing the murder? Not police. Other black men."

We decided to check Williams’ claim that the leading cause of death for African-American males 15-34 is murder.

That’s True.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide was indeed the No. 1 killer of black men between the ages of 15 and 34 in 2011, the most recent year with statistics available. Accidents were the second leading cause of death.

Compared to other ethnicities, the numbers really stand out. Forty percent of African-American males 15-34 who died were murdered, according to the CDC, compared to just 3.8 percent of white males who died. Overall, 14 percent of all men 15-34 who died in 2011 were murdered.

As the laws of aging go, younger men are less prone to fall victim to natural causes of death, so they are more likely to die of unnatural causes. And the racial disparity between those causes has partially to do with the likelihood of getting into car-related accidents, said James Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University.

"Suburban whites drive more than urban blacks, and putting in more miles on highways — that’s important because not a lot of people are going to get killed in fender benders in neighborhood streets," Fox said. "There are relatively few auto-accidents in black urban areas."

Beyond driving habits, the criminal homicide rate among young black males is significantly higher than other groups. This, experts agreed, has to do with poverty and geography.

The difference in social structures, access to jobs, educational opportunities, and many other factors between impoverished black neighborhoods and others is often a matter of life and death, according to Eli Silverman, professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

"The (homicide) numbers highlight the condition in minority areas, where a lot of violence occurs and the whole way of life is further intensified because police surveillance is always trying to track down people," he said. "People have heightened survival instincts, will do anything to survive, and they’ll seek retribution for anything … because they don’t trust law enforcement."

Unarmed black killed ‘every 28 hours’

On CNN, conservative African-American radio host Larry Elder and liberal African-American professor and author Marc Lamont Hill debated the state of race relations in the country.

"How often does it happen that an unarmed black is shot by a cop?" Elder asked in the Aug. 20, 2014, interview.

"Every 28 hours," Hill said. "Every 28 hours, Larry. Larry, every 28 hours. According to the MXGM study, a black person is killed by law enforcement, vigilantes or security …"

Elder cut in, but Hill revisited his point later in the interview, saying, "But if this study bears out, and it does, that every 28 hours an unarmed black person is killed, then that also is a problem."

Hill has his figures wrong. That claim rates False.

Hill is referencing a 2013 report by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement called "Every 28 Hours," which examined killings of African-Americans in 2012 by law enforcement, security guards and "vigilantes" who claimed self-defense.

The report is not an academic, unbiased representation of these deaths. It was put together by one volunteer researcher and details 313 deaths based on news clips and police reports. It arrives at one death "every 28 hours" by dividing the number of hours in a year, 8,760, by the number of deaths, 313.

But the report doesn’t say what Hill offered on CNN, that an "unarmed black person is killed" every 28 hours.

In fact, less than half of the people who were killed were unarmed, according to MXGM. PunditFact found 136 were labeled as unarmed after reviewing the compiled profiles.

The 28-hour calculation factored in all 313 deaths, which included people who were armed, "allegedly" armed and unarmed.

Also, not all of the "unarmed" people are analogous to Brown’s case or were killed by police.

Included in the unarmed tally, for instance, is Trayvon Martin, the Miami Gardens teen who was killed by a neighborhood watchman named George Zimmerman. In other cases, whether someone was really "unarmed" may depend on your definition. In nine cases, police said they shot at suspects because they were charging at them from behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Another case to make the list is Rudy Eugene, the Miami man who attacked a homeless man and gnawed his face before police shot him to death.

We also found several "unarmed" deaths that were due to accidents, many car crashes as officers sped to a scene. In another example, one woman was killed at her birthday party, hosted by an off-duty police officer, when she hugged the officer from behind and somehow set off his gun.

More whites are victims of police shootings

The turmoil in Ferguson has spurred many assertions that blacks are unfairly victimized by police. Conservative talk show host Michael Medved aimed to turn that argument on its head.

In a post-show summary on his website, Medved cast police as the protectors of African-Americans. Medved said that blacks are much more likely to be killed by another black person than they are by a cop.

"When it comes to keeping black youths from violent death, police aren’t the problem – in fact, they’re a crucial part of any solution," Medved said.

As for the charge that police target blacks, Medved said the opposite is true.

"More whites than blacks are victims of deadly police shootings," he said.

That’s technically correct, but only because there are many more whites in the United States than blacks. So Medved’s claim rates Half True.

In a country that is about 63 percent white and 12 percent black, the probability that an African-American will die in a confrontation with police is much higher than for whites.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention keeps data on fatal injuries from 1999 to 2011 and one category is homicides by legal intervention. The term "legal intervention" covers any situation when a person dies at the hands of anyone authorized to use deadly force in the line of duty.

Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. In that respect, Medved is correct.

However, Brian Forst, a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology at American University, said this difference is predictable.

"More whites are killed by the police than blacks primarily because whites outnumber blacks in the general population by more than five to one," Forst said.

Rather than comparing the raw numbers, you can look at the likelihood that a person will die due to "legal intervention" in the same way you might look at the chance a person will die in a car accident or a disease like lung cancer. When you do that, the numbers flip.

A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the death rate due to legal intervention was more than three times higher for blacks than for whites in the period from 1988 to 1997.

Ferguson’s black unemployment rate

Fox pundit Lou Dobbs criticized President Barack Obama for not going firsthand to Ferguson to calm tensions after the killing of an unarmed 18-year-old African-American by a white police officer.

Obama, Dobbs claimed, bears responsibility for the economic issues that have contributed to the tensions in Ferguson. "Black unemployment is three times that of white unemployment," Dobbs said on Aug. 19’s America’s Newsroom. "The community itself has a 13 percent unemployment rate, more than double that of the national average. The household net worth in that community is $10,000, a third less than the national average."


Attorney General Eric Holder talking with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake’s Place Restaurant in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)
"These are the results of policies on the part of the state government, the local community, and the president of the United States," Dobbs said, arguing that President Obama should assure residents that "there will be honest and forthright dealing" with "no ambiguity about the conclusions."

Obama needs to see, Dobbs said, "what happens when you don’t push job creation, you don’t push prosperity for all Americans."

Dobbs’ claim that Obama is behind the disparity in unemployment rates is False.

First and foremost, Dobbs’ numbers are off. The most recent and best available statistics say the black unemployment rate is 1.9 times higher than the white unemployment rate in Ferguson (16 percent to 8.5 percent).

Second, that has little to do with Obama. Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping data in 1954, African-Americans have been nationwide are more likely to be unemployed than whites.

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/26...guson-shooting/

By feeding him?

IMO, banning guns won't work here, because they are already here, many of them, and the only ones to turn them in would be the law abiding citizens.

Like draining a lake, you can drain out all the water, but you will still have a wet muck at the bottom once your done. That muck is the criminal element, who aren't going to say "Oh they are banning guns, let's go get in line to turn ours in"

We need to find another solution.

I'm saying you keep trying things until you find something that does work. There is ZERO excuse for this country to have a crime rate equal to that of some third world dictator countries.

You try societal fixes, you try social fixes, you try economic fixes, you try legislative fixes... and you don't stop trying.


Probably. I used to drink and drive all the time. Usually not over the top, falling down drunk, but probably too drunk to drive. If drinking and driving wasn't illegal, I would have been a law abiding citizen.. right up until the point where I killed somebody. Fortunately I wised up before that ever happened.

The NRA won't let us limit the hardware, they want all guns from small hand guns to full auto military grade rifles legal and all forms of ammo as well. They fight back if you try to regulate who can buy one with background checks, waiting periods, etc. They want any schmo to be able to walk into a gun show and walk out armed for battle... So you can stick to your "from my cold dead hands" approach, just know that society is turning against that and will likely continue to do so and about the only way I can see that stopping is if the gun owners and the NRA actually start to negotiate in good faith to try to find solutions...

Unless you are a specially licensed collector, which 99.99% of people aren't, full auto rifles are illegal already. Pretty sure having one is a felony.

Now, I myself have never heard of the NRA wanting full auto weapons to be legal - but I don't follow them as close as you may.

Who needs to license a fully auto rifle when you have the completely legal bumpski?

AWESOME!

You are correct. But if you read the NRA legal page on it, they sure sound like they don't like it that way.

But the NRA has found solutions!

-The Eddie Eagle NRA program teaches gun safety to kids!
-To get a concealed carry permit you must take a course given
by a trained NRA certified instructor!

-Raise your kids to be responsible, law abiding members of society and most of these problems will go away on their own.
-Stop blaming teachers for your child's problems and stop
punishing law abiding gun owners for society's problems.

sigh....

this is why nothing ever gets done.

we're talking about these flags being removed from government buildings.

then people like 40 exaggerate and claim we're trying to ban the flag period.

same things with guns. no matter what we propose, to them it sounds like *redneck voice* "they're trying to take my guns!!!! my rights!!!"

this is why i'm just giving up. there's no point anymore.

You sure like using the term "redneck", don't you?

I would imagine, in your opinion, I'm a redneck?

Don't give up, you will get your way with the flag. The crying, offended people always do.

Next the crying, offended will take away the Redskins and Indians.

You always eventually win with the crying and the Press behind you.

Trouble is the only thing you succeed in creating is resentment.

red neck voice/country voice.

i say the same thing on Fb when i go *ghetto voice*

i know right?

all those people crying about wanting to be treated equally, next thing you know, they'll be crying about equal pay!1

I made the mistake of wearing my Chief Wahoo hat out in public on the weekend like I have all my life, three separate times I was told my hat was offensive.

Cry Cry Cry poor poor offended ones. The hat is now in the box.

Or not being allowed to decorate city hall with crosses.

Or storing away the wife's mink coat because the crying classes are offended by fur.

HAha! That last line sounds familiar to the Gay marriage threads! We have our rights under the Constitution, stop telling us how to live because of your messed up values!

Do you understand the the demographic of most of these spree killers is middle to upper middle class white kids from what most would consider pretty stable homes?


Good idea. Now if we could just get the criminals with illegal guns to take the class...

I'm not saying that the NRA doesn't try to promote responsible gun ownership, but it fights any attempt to fight criminal gun ownership.

I know.. it's like all of those people crying about black kids wearing their pants down off their asses.. heck, those crying people got school dress codes changed and local ordinances passed.

Again, I have to disagree here. But, as I said earlier, maybe you follow the nra more than me - but how is the nra fighting any attempt to fight criminal gun ownership?

I think you might be exaggerating? By that, I mean your words make it sound like the nra is fighting for criminals to have gun rights.