Fox: It's Extraordinary That Charleston Church Shooting Is Being Called a Hate Crime

Ahhh, but the POINT is that you would have LESS fatalities if these nuts use a knife. Count how many of these gun used fatalities stock up against a nut case using arson or a hammer or a bomb in a school or church in the last 20 years. And let's not forget the cases where the perpetrator was NOT mentally ill or whacked out on drugs!

- - - Updated - - -

I take it you were being sarcastic.

 

In cases like this, it's up to the courts and cops to concur when such tapes should be made public before, during or after a trial. So we'll have to wait.

 

See above response.

 

agree, I just expected one of the videos on a page like that to include what the title claimed, disappointed that neither did

 

You can't compare what an insane person will do as oppose to a sane one. But lets put this silly notion of yours to rest with some facts regarding the subject at hand. Read this all the way through, carefully and comprehensively: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

 

They did....note the first 4 words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Yeah pretty sure that ounce of prevention isn't needlessly harassing people to get very little in the way of results. This law goes past the point of diminishing returns. It's obvious that way, way, way more legit firearms transactions will be screwed over or flat out prevented than there would have been criminals obtaining guns. Again this was a Bloomberg law, a man who is patently anti-gun. It has nothing to do with stopping crime and everything to do with harassing gun owners.

 

So what's your beef? That you want access to any and all types of weaponry with little to know gov't oversight or regulation? Sorry, but unless you're part of a well regulated militia, that ain't happening. I don't recall reading in the history books about anyone in the 17 and 1800's just going up to the military and purchasing cannon, now....do you?

The nonsense by gunners about Obama "grabbing guns" is just that...nonsense. And the FACT that gunners and the NRA punditry are having near hysterics because this is what, the 14 incident of mass shootings by a joker with easy access to a weapon that they shouldn't have had shows the absurd lengths they will go to defend an ideology that is proving fatal to a lot of folk.

 

"the real world disagrees with me", followed by a link to an anti-gun site. Maybe if there were some real statistics showing that criminals were constantly using this "private sales" loophole I'd listen, but they have not been presented. Also worth noting this affects all private sales and transactions. More specifically I'm talking about the part where it is illegal under this law for me, as a gun owner, to borrow a friends weapon for the day. Explain how that helps anything.

 

Nice try, son. But since I DID NOT SAY FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, you're just blowing smoke. I didn't make up the title "assault weapons", and as you inadvertently demonstrated, the category doesn't fully cover all (unless you foolishly generalize). See my above response for your education on the subject.


All this doesn't detract from the fact that (yet again) you have a case of a guy who shouldn't of had access to a weapon get on and kill a lot of people. Deal with it.

 

And yet: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

 

Actually they did purchase cannon. Merchant ships were often armed and Privateers issued Letters of Marque were privately outfitted. Many small rural outposts possessed cannon that were privately purchased and owned.

 

At the time, there was just a white gunman shooting up a predominantly black church. No heresay confessions. While I would agree that race is the first thing to look at as motive, calling it a hate crime out of the shoot is a little presumptuous. No pun intended. However when an Islamist commits an act of terrorism, there is ALWAYS a deluge of socially conscious liberals insisting we dont know that it is tied to Islam.

BTW can you just reply to posts, and not make your replys part of the quoted post? Makes it a pain in the ass to then quote you back.

 

innocent until proved guilty

now it could still be a crime if part of his condition of release was not to be around guns

 

The stupidity lies in your effort to somehow diminish a hate crime AS CONFESSED BY THE PERPETRATOR with your ignorant knowledge of the law. Sorry Joseph, but your personal interpretations are just irrelevant here in lieu of historical fact and precedent.

 

You are insinuating that recent developments in defining what a person is thinking about when they commit a crime is actually a positive somehow or meaningful.

Sorry, but unfortunately identifying a crime as a "hate" crime does not help the situation or make future situations less likely .

On the contrary I would argue that creating a thing called "hate crime" actually makes the crime worse and furthers the "hate" aspect.

Liberals and conservatives are both guilty of reinforcing and continuing these ridiculous pathologies on both sides of the equation.

You could also call them "race" crimes or insinuate it is because of "race" directly. But It's not. "race" is not the actual issue. The actual issue is culture.

There are MORE similarities between black New Yorkers and White southerners than there are between black "new yorkers" and black African fascists and militia groups. Meaning actual skin color is not at the real heart of this problem. I know that will be looked at with many ???????????????????? But I would suggest thinking hard, objectively about the issue.

To reduce the situation to "race" is diminishing the actual truth behind what is going on.

"Race" itself is not the issue but the "culture" represented by that "race' which is a significant difference.

 

translation: this guy just ignores FACTS that he doesn't like and blows Hoosier smoke.

- - - Updated - - -

Care to document or just make generalized and vague statements?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the info....what's your source?

 

Again, no one said all crime would be prevented. Also, take into account size, geography...and note that in NYC guns from states with lesser gun laws show up at their crime scenes.

 

Yet the crime is in NYC, the city with stricter gun laws. Go figure.

 

All it takes is one time, Tex...as we have just scene. Your reality is not for everyone else.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...nses_offense_type_by_bias_motivation_2013.xls

 

Everything only takes one time. What's your point?

 

Actually, Michigan has pretty lax gun laws. The Brady Campaign rates all states for their gun control laws from A to F (A meaning strictest). They rate Michigan as a C. Most blue states are A's or B's.

NYC on the other hand, does have strict gun laws, but it has an extremely low murder rate. Far lower than states or cities that have lax gun laws.

 

Why do you think nobody has seen my gun after carrying for years? It's not something I treat lightly. If people knew how many guns were protecting them without incident, it would make a very positive argument for guns, but it's too serious of a matter to be used as a political statement. That's why even though open carry will become legal in TX in 6 months, my gun will still remain concealed.

 

Well, there we have it. Turns out Dylann Roof had a website ranting about why he did it- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/20/dylann-roof-manifesto-charleston-shooting_n_7627788.html

Notably, he perceives himself as bravely carrying out the actions that right wing white supremacist Internet trolls, like those infesting this and many other forums, only dare talk about.

Hopefully that inspires some of you to think more carefully about the vile things you post.