@ Jeff Kuta

I dispute your assertion that guns are a catalyst to violence. Remember that the worst act of domestic terrorism in US history was perpetrated with little more than a rental truck and common fertilizer.

An individual determined to kill innocent people will find a way to do so, guns or no guns. Which brings me to my question for you: What would you propose for a solution?

@ orathaic

"I posit that blaming mental health for gun crime adds to the stigma, which delays or stops people with mental health problems from seeking help and actually has a negative effect on individuals."

A gun is an inanimate object. My .45 is a wonderful piece of machinery and an iconic symbol of American ingenuity, but it is just that: A piece of machinery. It has no will or mind of its own. Therefore, to blame the prevalence of guns in society for the actions of people does nothing to address the issue at hand and only serves to deflect blame away from the perpetrators.

I'm not blaming the shooter's (lack of) mental health; I'm blaming the fact that he apparently had no access to treatment. If going to see a shrink was as simple/easy as going to see a dentist or a medical doctor, then we would not have a problem with mass shooters in the United States. IMHO, *everyone* should go talk to a shrink once a year as sort of a psychological annual check-up. Fifteen minutes with a shrink might have prevented all of this nonsense.

"All parts of American culture which are a part of this gun violence epidemic."

Okay, what's your solution? I have pointed out why various gun control proposals would be either impossible or ineffective in the United States. You can't simply change a culture at will. A significant portion of culture is rooted in history, and you certainly can't change history. Americans *needed* guns to overthrow our British masters. Americans *needed* guns to protect our homesteads from Native Americans and cattle rustlers. Americans *needed* guns to put food on the table. Korean-Americans sure as hell needed guns to protect their livelihoods from looters in Los Angeles in 1992. These memories are still fresh in our collective minds. You'd have better luck trying to pull Americans away from American football.

"but the media should be held responsible for spreading images of violent offenders who will then be worshipped by others."

We are in agreement on this. The disgustingly low ethical standard maintained by our mass media outlets certainly aren't helping this issue or other issues. That being said, it is worth noting that the Charleston shooter was a fugitive for a brief period, during which time the media was absolutely justified in plastering his face everywhere possible. However, his likeness and name should be forgotten, now that he is apprehended. Historical obscurity should accompany whatever fate the judicial system has in store for him. In an ideal world, there would be one brief story when he is convicted, and that's all the more we would hear about it.

The media simply fans the fire most of the time. For example, how many American police officers have been railroaded out of their vocations for simply doing their duty (Officer Darren Wilson)? I digress.

krellin, always the victim never the perpetrator. but aren't we all.

y2k - I will ask you once to cease with the personal attacks.

Thank you.

orath - I will ask you once to cease with intentionally racially charged posts.

Thank you.

lol go email the mods, have at it

y2k - keep personally attacking me, and I will go to the mods. I'm trying to be complaint to the guidelines and standards. Do you think you are above them???

i think i'm above your twisted interpretation of them

@Thucy

"Because they were targeted for being Black, not being Christian. End of discussion"

Lol, You have read the story right? They were killed in their church during a Bible study, but no being Christian had nothing to do with it, gotcha.

"Nine Black Christians shot by psycho" then,

better? :-)



@ y2k


You obviously missed the point which was more about the OP's bias than any perceived violent war against Christianity. I was merely pointing out how the label Christian was being misused in two simultaneous threads by the same OP.

You're right, I don't see how anyone would see it as a general attack on Christianity, nor do I see how you could have gotten that from what I said. Since my point was clearly much different than what you assumed it must be.

Of course the shooter's attack was BOTH an attack based upon racism and an attack on Christianity.

A person seeking a race war alone would have....welll....he would have just gone around shooting people of a particular description in order to create his drama.

That he say in a church (as opposed to....some other place where he could have found people to target) is suggestive that Religion was alos part of his motivation.

But people don't want to talk about that possibility, do they? (NO, they don't, because it is NOT being discussed.)

So you two honestly believe that this guy wanted to kill Christians, and the dialogue we should be having now should be discussing why so many Christians are persecuted in America?

y2k - nobody ever said what you are suggesting. I understand that you are intentionally trying to provoke a response...but I also know that you are intelligent enough to know better. Grow up.

THIS SHOOTER -- wanted to start a race war (his own confession). That he choose to do so in a "black" Church is ALSO indiciative that there is a religious component to THIS INDIVIDUAL'S action.

That you are either disingenuous enough, or maybe truly stupid enough, to try to associate the actions of an INDIVIDUAL to the attitudes of a nation is just pathetic.

But for the media to deny that their was a possible religuous motivation TO THIS INDIVIDUAL is just a lie.


But most important...that fact that ANYONE is discussion that actions of ONE PERSON and trying to attribute his mental illness to an entire nation is just utterly disgusting. BUT....and this is a huge, massive but....THERE IS MONEY to be made is the industry of dividing the nation and pitting them against one another. Lots of people live their entire lives taking in money so they can point out divisions and cry foul.

This entire story has been told...one sick person committed a crime. End of story. It does NOT reflect on a nation. It reflects on THE INDIVIDUAL THAT COMMITTED THE ACT. Period. End of story. And everyone, regardless of race, greed, gender, etc, should uniformly applaud the righteous punishment of this sick fuck.

@krellin/CA: Honestly, I seriously doubt religion had a part to play in this. The person who killed these people was known for anti-black views, and said his motivation was that black people were taking over America. Not to mention this was not just a church, it was the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. It was know for being a religious institution for African Americans. If he was looking for a place where African Americans gather in masses, he picked a pretty good place. Also, when else to attack than during a Bible Study, when you know, there are people using the church and will be in there?

Vashta....is THAT what the media told you??? lol Good lord. Slave to the media state, aren't you. God forbid you use your brain.

"Not to mention this was not just a church, it was the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. It was know for being a religious institution for African Americans."

YESSSS!!! RELIGION WAS A HUGE PART OF THIS!!!! Thank you for pointing that our, media slave...

would this guy have shot up a church full of white people? probably not. if given the chance, would he have shot up a NAACP meeting with all black people? probably.

ultimately, this was just one person's actions. the problem with the national dialogue is that it's just fixating on the "why did he do it", rather than the "why did he think the things he did that ultimately led him to do it"? He killed these people because he had a rooted hatred for black people, couple with other issues in this guy's life that convinced him to act on the hatred. Maybe Christianity played a subtle role in it, but all the evidence available now points to his actions being racially motivated, not religiously motivated. but why did he hate black people? why do people in the comments section of foxnews.com make comments about sending black people back to Africa? are all these people mentally ill? that's the question to ask. religious persecution does exist in America and everywhere, against Christians Muslims and just about every religion, no one is denying that. and debating why religious people are persecuted and how to prevent it definitely has its place in the national dialogue. but for this particular event, to focus on why this guy shot up a church and why he killed 9 Christians, vs. why he shot up an all-black gathering of people, is disingenuous at best when it comes to actually diagnosing any larger issue in our nation that goes beyond just the thoughts of one individual that happened to be angry enough to act out on troubling thoughts actually shared by many in the nation, not just him alone.

No, that is what logic tells me. You see krellin, I was positing that the reason he chose the place was because it was a well known place where African Americans gather on a regular schedule basis, not because it was a religious institution. Also, it really depends on what media you are talking about, because conservative media seems to focus on the supposed religious aspect despite the racial bias stated by the perpetrator.

P.S
Don't you think it is a tad insensitive to use the word slave when referring to someone talking about a racially motivated violent action?

"would this guy have shot up a church full of white people? probably not"

WQRONG QUESTION. The FACT IS he SHOT UP A CHURCH.

This is a point you willfully neglect to consider.

Thus, because you won't even ask the question, "Why a church full of Christians?", it is obvious that you have already discounted in your mind the idea that thsi church./religion was in any way involved in his calculation.

i.e. you are a media slave - you have been given your marching orders (this was, and ONLY was, a racial event.....please do not think any other thoughts...) and like a good fearful slave you have therefore refused to ask any further questions.

Vashta -- No, I do not find the use of the word "slave" at all insensitive. lol Were there any slaves involved in this event? The concept of a "media slave" is a rather specific idea....it implies that a person has been given their ideological marching orders by the media they consume, and that, as a good slave, they consciously choose to not question, but simply comply with the thoughts.

Far different than a sheep who doesn't know any better, a slave actually consciously complies.

It is in NO WAY intended be derogatory, but rather is used in a specific descriptive way.

Further, the idea that you are so knee-jerk reactive and fearful of the term "slave" makes me question YOUR freedom of thought, as well.

For the record, my friend, slavery is not a problem confined to a specific race, but is a historicla problem that spans ALL races and religions and even genders.

So....before you get all in a huff about the proper use of a term that you do not understand (apparently), perhaps you need to better educate yourself on both history and language.

so krellin with all your wisdom and ability to reason and question without bias while seeking truth, what thoughts or conclusions do you draw, if any, from a white guy killing 9 black people at a church claiming racial hatred for his motivation?

I'm floored that you think this was in any way an attack on Christianity. Yes it was in a church. It was in a church with a history of civil rights organizing by black people and a cornerstone of the community. That's why it was targeted.

It is an attack on Christianity in the sense that white supremacy is itself an attack on Christianity though, I'll give you that.

http://www.russellmoore.com/2015/06/19/the-cross-and-the-confederate-flag/

The apologia for the white supremacy in this thread is appalling. Why do you feel the need to dance around this issue? Why must you always deny that something, ANYTHING is "about race"?

This is holocaust-denier level of insanity and moral decrepitude.

was it an attack on christianity? i don't believe so. I may not be as well informed as some - concerning interviews with the bastard, and media releases - but in the end this is just a nutjob.

SECONDLY!!!!
look up England 2011 Riots (race stuff in advance countries)
and for a bit more relevant to our current situation we see the 2011 florence shootings.

Obama needs to step off, cause he is only once again showing his lack of knowledge in foreign affairs.

"I'm not blaming the shooter's (lack of) mental health; I'm blaming the fact that he apparently had no access to treatment. If going to see a shrink was as simple/easy as going to see a dentist or a medical doctor, then we would not have a problem with mass shooters in the United States. IMHO, *everyone* should go talk to a shrink once a year as sort of a psychological annual check-up. Fifteen minutes with a shrink might have prevented all of this nonsense." Supply vs demand here: people don't want to go to a shrink because they don't want their neighbours thinking they are a nutjob. This it is harder to find one, in fact the term shrink is a derogatory one in the first place. Like calling a dentist a 'tooth-puller' or similar. All part of the problem with mental health which you're not even addressing here. It looks like you completely ignored my point. So how about listening to what some other people are saying about it : constitutiveoutsider.tumblr.com/post/86742938137/the-mental-illness-we-refuse-to-name-white-male

""All parts of American culture which are a part of this gun violence epidemic."

Okay, what's your solution?" I don't know, i've given up advocating for gun control, because those conversations don't go anywhere. You either want it and see it as the most obvious solution, or you're willing to try find a much harder solution.

However step 1 is recognising the scale of the problem. As you say, guns are a part of american culture. So to change the part where gun violence is a part of the culture you must look at your culture in its entirety.

" I have pointed out why various gun control proposals would be either impossible or ineffective in the United States. You can't simply change a culture at will. A significant portion of culture is rooted in history, and you certainly can't change history. Americans *needed* guns to overthrow our British masters. Americans *needed* guns to protect our homesteads from Native Americans and cattle rustlers. Americans *needed* guns to put food on the table. Korean-Americans sure as hell needed guns to protect their livelihoods from looters in Los Angeles in 1992. These memories are still fresh in our collective minds. You'd have better luck trying to pull Americans away from American football."

Agreed. Entirely why i don't bother pointing at European cultures and saying 'sure this works for us, and everything worked out fine'. If you can't learn from our example, then you need to find our own solution.

I imagine that the cultural differences between the Swiss and Americans are far greater than levels of gun ownership indicate - but a decent contrast with the Swiss might reveal some of the reasons they have lower levels of gun violence.

So... old site member returning and deciding to break his lurking streak -

Just regarding a certain recurring topic here:

It does stand to reason that this was an attack on black Americans.

Clearly, their Christianity had an impact on the circumstances, but our attempts to suggest how or to what extent would most likely be half-true assessments, given the crazy amount of variables there involved. To suggest that their Christianity was irrelevant is careless, but to suggest they were attacked *for being* Christian is (most likely) a bit extreme.

With response to the OP topic:

This situation is hardly simple enough to boil down to "Racist simpleton attends church service for several minutes, mows down blacks because guns." The use of firearms in this instance is, sadly, less relevant than the President seems to want to make it (which, in reality, should anger millions of Americans - politicizing this horrific massacre in the interest of gun control).

No no. Roof was methodical and cunning, not mad. This is the cardinal hallmark of American prejudice and human race-based superiority complex uniting to support one man's desire for the suppression of an entire ethnic group.

In an issue issue that scale, guns should be, like, the 7th thing we talk about.

@gunfighter: I repeat my assertion that guns are a catalyst to violence.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

In 2013, there were 16,121 homicides (excluding suicides). 11,208 of these were caused by firearms. It is reasonable to assume 2013 was typical and that approximately two-thirds of homicides are committed with guns each year. Firearms are by far the weapon of choice for homicide. As you are a gun owner, I don't think I need to elaborate to you on the reasons why they are the top pick. I will say that a large scale terrorist attack is unlikely to rely exclusively on small arms because, well, they are most effective on a small scale.

Some global homicide by firearms stats.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

The first step toward change is admitting there is a problem. Until gun owners admit this and advocate for change that makes sense given our constitutional framework, it's almost a moot point for anyone else to propose policy solutions. I don't really want to get into that game.

First, people need to understand the breadth and depth of the public health crisis of gun violence.

@y2k

I find it hard to believe that I can clearly state my position twice (the second being a clear refutation of your misunderstanding of it); and you are still trying to push a blatantly false characterization of my stance.

I will restate it for you a third time:

In two simultaneous threads, Jamie only felt the need to use the label "Christian" to delineate a person who was behaving badly. When the Christians were being violently attacked in their own church, then they were merely "people". I brought this up to show Jamie's bias. Period.

It is a clear case of bias: In one thread Jamie wanted to portray Christians as infringing on the rights of others (and indeed in that instance one did). Yet in the other he wanted (it seems) for the dialogue to be one of gun control in the U.S. (notice he did not identify them as black either, so the race war idea was not his main focus since he identified the perpetrator as a "nut-job gun owner").

Now in terms of civil rights in the World, I spent 18 weeks last year teaching two units one “What has history taught us about the fight for civil rights” & the second “Character: from average to exceptional”. In these I taught Carolym Maull McKinstry’s “While the World Watched” and “No easy Walk to Freedom” a biography of Nelson Mandela. I had student’s asking me why I was spending so much time teaching social studies in my language arts class, but still I went into detail using current articles about the treatment of African-Americans in the U.S.A. and in other parts of the world. I did this because whenever someone is biased against another group, nobody should tolerate it. Period.

My guess is that some other teacher did the same for you, otherwise you wouldn’t feel so justified in lecturing me about how to treat people. What have you done this year to educate others about how to treat people? Complain on an internet forum about the state of things? How is that going to help? The problem is that your teacher didn’t go far enough. Because when someone points out “Look at the bias here happening right now” you blindly ignore it in some incomprehensible rage. Thus the only thing you have when confronted with this is to willfully ignore that very valid point.
I am trying to fix the situation with regard to race relations through education, but picking and choosing who gets singled out and who does not perpetuates the problem. Thus we only have the new outcasts replacing the old ones. Is that really your idea of justice?

Let me summarize so that you don't misunderstand me again:

1. ANY bias and hatred is bad.
2. I actively teach others to be tolerant especially with regard to civil rights / race, thus the idea that I care nothing about race relations is utter nonsense and far removed from any stance I would ever take.
3. If you are truly worried about eliminating bias, then why tolerate it in any form?

CA, what happened was me focusing on responding to what krellin was saying, and wrongly lumping you in with him. I do follow your points and I agree, you sound like an honest person with a realistic expectation of what can and should be done to help the world be better.

Gotta drop this here though: http://melanoidnation.org/terrorist-dylann-roofs-white-supremacist-manifesto/

Fair enough y2k, it's cool.