Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Modern Domestic Terrorism: Death In The Willamette

1457910101

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Reading this thread has been an interesting experience for the D&D crew I see in other threads. In other threads we argue that mentally illness is a rather large facet that needs to be addressed. In this thread there are bits and pieces of "he must be thrown in a hole" sentiment because of "racism". To me he is obviously mentally ill. And, I also believe, he should not smell free air for a long time. The two statements are intertwined to each other. But because of a past incidents where a situation such as this could be grounds for "getting off".

    In the end, from what I have seen, can we just call the mentally ill argument as: Some of us believe he is mentally ill and should still be penalized heavily. And some of us don't want that moniker because it denotes a lessening of accountability.

    So, here's the thing - why do you believe that he is mentally ill?

    Because he's racist? That's a VERY problematic argument.

    Because he killed 9 people? This is still a problematic argument, though not nearly as bad as the previous. But still, there are issues with treating the capacity to kill as being a sign of mental illness alone

    And this is where I think the problem is with trying to argue that such atrocities are signs of mental illness - it's an argument that those who do so are "different", are "defective". Because we are scared to contemplate the idea of but there for the grace of God go I.

    Calling someone who kills a bunch of black people cause he's a white supremacist "crazy" is basically expanding the definition of mental illness to the point where it applies to anyone that commits a crime.

    Nope. There can and often are a myriad of reasons people commit crimes. Because they're "broken" or "bad" is never one of them.

    Yes. Just like with this act of terrorism.

    Okay? So then you do agree that mental illness played a part?

    No. Just like your last post said it didn't.

    There's literally no reason to think this has anything to do with mental illness beyond "only a crazy person would do this" which applies to basically every crime.

    shryke on
    AngelHedgiePreacherwazillaJuliusHadjiQuestFeloniousmozCaulk Bite 6HacksawShadowenFuzzytadpoleIskra
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    How would mental health service enhancements have prevented this tragedy?

    Can you go to therapy for being a huge racist?

    You can certainly go to therapy for having urges to commit acts of violence or a strong desire to kill people.

    To seek help for a problem you have to admit you have one. I don't believe based on his actions Dylann considered being a huge admitted racist as a problem. Also his friends from the gawker link didn't seem to think it was an issue, and nor did his father who bought him a pistol for his birthday.

    Maybe, maybe not! Kind of irrelevant to the question.

    I think it's entirely relevant that no one in his life thought he had a mental illness or thought that his racism was an issue to be concerned about, or reported anything to anyone.

    Yes no one in his life thought he had a mental illness. Our education on the topic and services offered are also atrocious so I kinda sorta think that should be considered a factor.

    I guess, no matter how many times you say "it can be both!", I'm still of the opinion that immediately labeling this person mentally ill takes away from putting his racism in the spotlight as the motivating factor for his actions. It also takes away from the discussion of systemic and cultural racism in the community he lived in. You cannot install a mental health clinic there to prevent this. You have to have the harder conversation about cultural and systemic white supremacy.

    I know you are not intending to, but time and time again these type of deflections distract from the underlying huge issue we still have with racism in this country. Also it doesn't sound factually supported to me to claim he has a mental illness, at this point.

    TheCanManjoshofalltradesPreacherNova_CAngelHedgieArdolMagellqwer12Caulk Bite 6HacksawShadowenzagdrob
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Reading this thread has been an interesting experience for the D&D crew I see in other threads. In other threads we argue that mentally illness is a rather large facet that needs to be addressed. In this thread there are bits and pieces of "he must be thrown in a hole" sentiment because of "racism". To me he is obviously mentally ill. And, I also believe, he should not smell free air for a long time. The two statements are intertwined to each other. But because of a past incidents where a situation such as this could be grounds for "getting off".

    In the end, from what I have seen, can we just call the mentally ill argument as: Some of us believe he is mentally ill and should still be penalized heavily. And some of us don't want that moniker because it denotes a lessening of accountability.

    So, here's the thing - why do you believe that he is mentally ill?

    Because he's racist? That's a VERY problematic argument.

    Because he killed 9 people? This is still a problematic argument, though not nearly as bad as the previous. But still, there are issues with treating the capacity to kill as being a sign of mental illness alone

    And this is where I think the problem is with trying to argue that such atrocities are signs of mental illness - it's an argument that those who do so are "different", are "defective". Because we are scared to contemplate the idea of but there for the grace of God go I.

    Calling someone who kills a bunch of black people cause he's a white supremacist "crazy" is basically expanding the definition of mental illness to the point where it applies to anyone that commits a crime.

    Nope. There can and often are a myriad of reasons people commit crimes. Because they're "broken" or "bad" is never one of them.

    Yes. Just like with this act of terrorism.

    Okay? So then you do agree that mental illness played a part?

    No. Just like your last post said it didn't.

    O_o

    I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're getting at here.

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    It sounds to me like people who knew Roof knew he was a huge racist and basically didn't think anything of it. Because racism is normalized in that community. His roommate straight up said "yeah, dude wanted to start a race war", and somehow never thought at any point to notify the authorities.

    His dad gave him a gun while he was awaiting a felony.

    The whole community basically just looked the other way. This is a complex problem to solve because the only way we get there is to dismantle white supremacy.

    I've been around people (white and black) who have wanted to "start race wars"* and of course no one reports them to authorities. What would the police even do? I stopped hanging out with them, yeah. But ALL types of people say racist and inflammatory shit in all areas of the country. I've never known those people to go on an actual murder spree.

    The gun thing is a legit issue and his father should be held accountable.

    This is hardly a "white supremacy" only issue. Racism in general is at fault here.

    *I am from the South

    ObiFett on
    HadjiQuestAgahnim
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Preacher wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    Charge the father, accessory to murder.

    That on top of him purchasing a firearm and transferring it to someone who he knew was a prohibited person.

    Which is already two crimes.

    I hope they charge the father for every and all crimes they can. Send a message, do not transfer fire arms to felons/people facing felonies, even people in your own god dam family, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE IN YOUR OWN GOD DAMN FAMILY!

    Well it is already a crime to do so. But the punishment comes after the crime is discovered. In this case if they recover the weapon and take it to the dealer they can get access to the dealer's black book and copy of the 4473 that show the father purchasing the firearm.

    Which would show he did two things:

    Purchased a firearm for a prohibited person

    Transferred said firearm to a prohibited person

    He very well should be on the hook for committing these two crimes and, if they can, get him on the hook as an accessory to the actual shooting.

    edit: To clarify, I completely support the father being charged with these two crimes and possibly as an accessory. That is the purpose of making straw purchase and knowingly transferring firearms to prohibited persons crimes.

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    JuliusHadjiQuest
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.

    I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.

    This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.

    Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.

    Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.

  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    How would mental health service enhancements have prevented this tragedy?

    Can you go to therapy for being a huge racist?

    You can certainly go to therapy for having urges to commit acts of violence or a strong desire to kill people.

    To seek help for a problem you have to admit you have one. I don't believe based on his actions Dylann considered being a huge admitted racist as a problem. Also his friends from the gawker link didn't seem to think it was an issue, and nor did his father who bought him a pistol for his birthday.

    Maybe, maybe not! Kind of irrelevant to the question.

    I think it's entirely relevant that no one in his life thought he had a mental illness or thought that his racism was an issue to be concerned about, or reported anything to anyone.

    Yes no one in his life thought he had a mental illness. Our education on the topic and services offered are also atrocious so I kinda sorta think that should be considered a factor.

    I guess, no matter how many times you say "it can be both!", I'm still of the opinion that immediately labeling this person mentally ill takes away from putting his racism in the spotlight as the motivating factor for his actions. It also takes away from the discussion of systemic and cultural racism in the community he lived in. You cannot install a mental health clinic there to prevent this. You have to have the harder conversation about cultural and systemic white supremacy.

    I know you are not intending to, but time and time again these type of deflections distract from the underlying huge issue we still have with racism in this country. Also it doesn't sound factually supported to me to claim he has a mental illness, at this point.

    Not really. I think all of us that mention mental health want to see him tried for a hate crime. It is not mutually exclusive.

    ObiFettQuid
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    I think it would be extremely difficult to pin the father for accessory to murder.

    Kaputa
  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    How would mental health service enhancements have prevented this tragedy?

    Can you go to therapy for being a huge racist?

    You can certainly go to therapy for having urges to commit acts of violence or a strong desire to kill people.

    To seek help for a problem you have to admit you have one. I don't believe based on his actions Dylann considered being a huge admitted racist as a problem. Also his friends from the gawker link didn't seem to think it was an issue, and nor did his father who bought him a pistol for his birthday.

    Maybe, maybe not! Kind of irrelevant to the question.

    I think it's entirely relevant that no one in his life thought he had a mental illness or thought that his racism was an issue to be concerned about, or reported anything to anyone.

    Yes no one in his life thought he had a mental illness. Our education on the topic and services offered are also atrocious so I kinda sorta think that should be considered a factor.

    I guess, no matter how many times you say "it can be both!", I'm still of the opinion that immediately labeling this person mentally ill takes away from putting his racism in the spotlight as the motivating factor for his actions. It also takes away from the discussion of systemic and cultural racism in the community he lived in. You cannot install a mental health clinic there to prevent this. You have to have the harder conversation about cultural and systemic white supremacy.

    I know you are not intending to, but time and time again these type of deflections distract from the underlying huge issue we still have with racism in this country. Also it doesn't sound factually supported to me to claim he has a mental illness, at this point.

    Not really. I think all of us that mention mental health want to see him tried for a hate crime. It is not mutually exclusive.

    Ok, so in what way did his mental illness contribute to the crime he committed?

    Psn:wazukki
    AngelHedgieCaulk Bite 6Shadowen
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.

    I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.

    This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.

    Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?

    Like what?

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Kaputa
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    How would mental health service enhancements have prevented this tragedy?

    Can you go to therapy for being a huge racist?

    You can certainly go to therapy for having urges to commit acts of violence or a strong desire to kill people.

    To seek help for a problem you have to admit you have one. I don't believe based on his actions Dylann considered being a huge admitted racist as a problem. Also his friends from the gawker link didn't seem to think it was an issue, and nor did his father who bought him a pistol for his birthday.

    Maybe, maybe not! Kind of irrelevant to the question.

    I think it's entirely relevant that no one in his life thought he had a mental illness or thought that his racism was an issue to be concerned about, or reported anything to anyone.

    Yes no one in his life thought he had a mental illness. Our education on the topic and services offered are also atrocious so I kinda sorta think that should be considered a factor.

    I guess, no matter how many times you say "it can be both!", I'm still of the opinion that immediately labeling this person mentally ill takes away from putting his racism in the spotlight as the motivating factor for his actions. It also takes away from the discussion of systemic and cultural racism in the community he lived in. You cannot install a mental health clinic there to prevent this. You have to have the harder conversation about cultural and systemic white supremacy.

    I know you are not intending to, but time and time again these type of deflections distract from the underlying huge issue we still have with racism in this country. Also it doesn't sound factually supported to me to claim he has a mental illness, at this point.

    Not really. I think all of us that mention mental health want to see him tried for a hate crime. It is not mutually exclusive.

    Not saying it is, just saying I think it distracts from the core issue, which is one as a country we're basically never ready to take on.

    Hacksaw
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I think it would be extremely difficult to pin the father for accessory to murder.

    They should still try.

    Hacksaw
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    http://jezebel.com/fox-news-and-lindsey-graham-lament-hate-crime-against-c-1712327016

    Don't watch the video it will make blood shoot from your eyes.

    [E]xtraordinarily, they called it a hate crime, and some look at it as well, because it was a white guy, apparently, and a black church, but you made a great point just a moment ago about the hostility toward Christians — and it was a church — so maybe that’s what they’re talking about. They haven’t explained it to us.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    How would mental health service enhancements have prevented this tragedy?

    Can you go to therapy for being a huge racist?

    You can certainly go to therapy for having urges to commit acts of violence or a strong desire to kill people.

    To seek help for a problem you have to admit you have one. I don't believe based on his actions Dylann considered being a huge admitted racist as a problem. Also his friends from the gawker link didn't seem to think it was an issue, and nor did his father who bought him a pistol for his birthday.

    Maybe, maybe not! Kind of irrelevant to the question.

    I think it's entirely relevant that no one in his life thought he had a mental illness or thought that his racism was an issue to be concerned about, or reported anything to anyone.

    Yes no one in his life thought he had a mental illness. Our education on the topic and services offered are also atrocious so I kinda sorta think that should be considered a factor.

    I guess, no matter how many times you say "it can be both!", I'm still of the opinion that immediately labeling this person mentally ill takes away from putting his racism in the spotlight as the motivating factor for his actions. It also takes away from the discussion of systemic and cultural racism in the community he lived in. You cannot install a mental health clinic there to prevent this. You have to have the harder conversation about cultural and systemic white supremacy.

    I know you are not intending to, but time and time again these type of deflections distract from the underlying huge issue we still have with racism in this country. Also it doesn't sound factually supported to me to claim he has a mental illness, at this point.

    I brought this up specifically because people weren't satisfied with saying the media was trying to distract from the issue. People in this thread were deciding it's not at all a factor, some people are just "broken," and deserves to suffer.

    Which I find more than a little unsettling.

    Julius
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I think it would be extremely difficult to pin the father for accessory to murder.

    Even so he did knowingly commit two separate crimes that he should be charged for.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.

    I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.

    This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.

    Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?

    Like what?

    Pounding out specifics would be best for a gun control thread.

  • TheZKTheZK Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I think it would be extremely difficult to pin the father for accessory to murder.

    Even so he did knowingly commit two separate crimes that he should be charged for.

    I think it's just one crime; I don't think he was a Federal PP, but just a SC PP at the time. But still, it was already not legal and this is down in the weeds.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Never let a good crisis go to waste.

    Agahnim
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    http://jezebel.com/fox-news-and-lindsey-graham-lament-hate-crime-against-c-1712327016

    Don't watch the video it will make blood shoot from your eyes.

    [E]xtraordinarily, they called it a hate crime, and some look at it as well, because it was a white guy, apparently, and a black church, but you made a great point just a moment ago about the hostility toward Christians — and it was a church — so maybe that’s what they’re talking about. They haven’t explained it to us.

    I hate the media in this country.

    Mental gymnastics for the sake of pandering all in the name of truthful reporting.

    CogTheCanManHadjiQuestCaulk Bite 6Hacksaw
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.

    I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.

    This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.

    Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.

    Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.

    If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    It sounds to me like people who knew Roof knew he was a huge racist and basically didn't think anything of it. Because racism is normalized in that community. His roommate straight up said "yeah, dude wanted to start a race war", and somehow never thought at any point to notify the authorities.

    His dad gave him a gun while he was awaiting a felony.

    The whole community basically just looked the other way. This is a complex problem to solve because the only way we get there is to dismantle white supremacy.

    I've been around people (white and black) who have wanted to "start race wars"* and of course no one reports them to authorities. What would the police even do? I stopped hanging out with them, yeah. But ALL types of people say racist and inflammatory shit in all areas of the country. I've never known those people to go on an actual murder spree.

    The gun thing is a legit issue and his father should be held accountable.

    This is hardly a "white supremacy" only issue. Racism in general is at fault here.

    *I am from the South

    racism in general isn't represented by apartheid and confederate flags

    ObiFett
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...

    You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?

    Kaputa
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.

    I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.

    This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.

    Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.

    Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.

    If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.

    Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs and make the argument that mental health programs may not have been a help, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?

    Cog on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Didn't see this posted yet:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/south_carolina_confederate_flag_after_church_shooting_flag_at_capitol_still.html

    Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    wazilla wrote: »
    As a bit of a thought experiment: if this act were perpetrated by a group of, let's say, 10 white supremacists, I don't think anybody would be saying that they were all insane. They are clearly a hate group and they were executing a plan that stemmed from their hatred.

    If it were a group of 5 white supremacists, still, I don't think anybody talks about sanity.

    2 white supremacists? Maybe then it starts to creep up.

    Only 1 guy? Now talk of mental illness starts to dominate discussion.

    Why can one person, by themselves, not do something motivated by hatred, without being called insane, whereas a group of people can?

    It's the same hatred, with the same result, just carried out by a different number of people, and I can kind of feel my train of thought being tugged off course based on just the number of people.

    No, clearly the leader of the group was mentally ill and the rest were just following along because they were vulnerable and taken advantage of, which clearly makes them the real victims.

    I wish what I just said was just a joke but I've heard this kind of apologism spewed out so often that the fact I haven't died of a brain aneurism yet is nothing short of a miracle.

    notdroid on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...

    You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?

    Perhaps we could ban associates of felons from owning guns.

    Ugh, I feel terrible even writing that. That's an idea that's so shitty I can't even be properly sarcastic about it.

    jothki on
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...

    You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?

    No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.

    CogObiFettiTunesIsEvilMagell
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...

    You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?

    That's ridiculously reductive.

    ObiFettRhesus PositiveXaquiniTunesIsEvilCaulk Bite 6HacksawShadowenKristmas Kthulhu
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Didn't see this posted yet:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/south_carolina_confederate_flag_after_church_shooting_flag_at_capitol_still.html

    Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.

    What a fucking stupid law.

    ObiFettwazillamcdermottJuliusJebus314XaquinJraggheniTunesIsEvilCaptain MarcusMagellRchanenCaulk Bite 6RedTideHacksawShadowenFuzzytadpolezagdrobWraith260SquigieTransporter
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Didn't see this posted yet:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/south_carolina_confederate_flag_after_church_shooting_flag_at_capitol_still.html

    Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.

    What in the

    That is one of the most asinine laws

    wazillamcdermottRchanenCaulk Bite 6ShadowenzagdrobWraith260Squigie
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.

    I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.

    This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.

    Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.

    Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.

    If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.

    Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?

    Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.

    JuliusKaputa
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Didn't see this posted yet:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/south_carolina_confederate_flag_after_church_shooting_flag_at_capitol_still.html

    Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.

    What a fucking stupid law.

    The dumb thing is that someone hasn't just gone out and "broken the law" by this point.

    I mean I doubt they would get arrested for it.

    Xaquin
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...

    You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?

    No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
    Is it not illegal to gift a weapon to someone undergoing felony investigation?

    Because holy shit.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    TheZK wrote: »
    In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
    I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.

    It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?



    A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.

    I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.

    This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.

    Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.

    Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.

    If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.

    Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?

    Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.

    So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.

    EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.

    Cog on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    They were forced to take down the symbol of their pride in their own racist heritage from the capitol building, but they wouldn't want to get rid of it completely so they passed a law to make sure it was always there.

    mcdermott
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Reading this thread has been an interesting experience for the D&D crew I see in other threads. In other threads we argue that mentally illness is a rather large facet that needs to be addressed. In this thread there are bits and pieces of "he must be thrown in a hole" sentiment because of "racism". To me he is obviously mentally ill. And, I also believe, he should not smell free air for a long time. The two statements are intertwined to each other. But because of a past incidents where a situation such as this could be grounds for "getting off".

    In the end, from what I have seen, can we just call the mentally ill argument as: Some of us believe he is mentally ill and should still be penalized heavily. And some of us don't want that moniker because it denotes a lessening of accountability.

    So, here's the thing - why do you believe that he is mentally ill?

    Because he's racist? That's a VERY problematic argument.

    Because he killed 9 people? This is still a problematic argument, though not nearly as bad as the previous. But still, there are issues with treating the capacity to kill as being a sign of mental illness alone

    And this is where I think the problem is with trying to argue that such atrocities are signs of mental illness - it's an argument that those who do so are "different", are "defective". Because we are scared to contemplate the idea of but there for the grace of God go I.

    It is more along the lines of all of it really. It comes with the loose definition of "mentally ill" and how it applies to certain situations. It is not a matter of abjection or attempting to lessen accountability but rather more on the base aspect of an individual's thoughts, actions or otherwise that I deem counter to societal norm. Or what we might want to have be the societal norm.

    That is even worse reasoning bro, since what we think is good and what perfectly normal healthy human beings can get up to are not the same thing.

    An innocent enough example is cheating. There are societal norms against it and in some circles quite strict ones, but I wouldn't say cheating is somehow a thing that only mentally ill people do. Or that someone who cheats has something seriously mentally wrong with them.


    Going down the road of equating societal norms with mental health is really fucking problematic.

    qwer12Caulk Bite 6ShivahnzagdrobWraith260ForarJakorian
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Didn't see this posted yet:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/south_carolina_confederate_flag_after_church_shooting_flag_at_capitol_still.html

    Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.

    What a fucking stupid law.

    The dumb thing is that someone hasn't just gone out and "broken the law" by this point.

    I mean I doubt they would get arrested for it.

    Given the nature of the flag I wouldn't be shocked if it's not simply tied but has some sort of lock on the very probably metal line.

  • CogCog Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Didn't see this posted yet:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/south_carolina_confederate_flag_after_church_shooting_flag_at_capitol_still.html

    Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.

    What a fucking stupid law.

    The dumb thing is that someone hasn't just gone out and "broken the law" by this point.

    I mean I doubt they would get arrested for it.

    I am legitimately not certain about that.

  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...

    You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?

    No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.

    I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.

    Psn:wazukki
This discussion has been closed.