Terrorist attack in South Carolina

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

This shooter was checking out a local major shopping center, got kicked out, returned to the same shopping center charged with trespassing.

He was looking for targets then.
His best friend said he was talking trash about taking out people at a local college, but security was too tight there.

He chose a defenseless black AME church instead.

Now he is quoted as saying he wanted to start a race war.

He probably will get his wish when someone does him in while in jail. Probably a black man will do the honors one that is in for life anyway.

Hillary Clinton and Obama both calling for gun control. Seems the father didn't give him the 45. for his birthday.

I hope they lock him in a cell with a black man. Can you imagine what he has to look forward to now?

Yah, madame Clinton is roaring about gun control, as usual. Exactly what gun control law would have stopped this?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I hope they lock him in a cell with a black man. Can you imagine what he has to look forward to now?

Yah, madame Clinton is roaring about gun control, as usual. Exactly what gun control law would have stopped this?

He will have to be in protective custody, there is alot of black dudes in prison. alot more than whites.

That rotten lying wench Clinton can go suck on turnips!
She reminds me of water, she fits whatever container you pour her into. I could go on a multi page rant on that shyster, but the language is not kosher here.

By the way I identify with the Dems, but she is bad news for everyone. I would rather vote for Trump.

[Onkel Neal]

He will have to be in protective custody, there is alot of black dudes in prison. alot more than whites.

Well, I'm sure there are some prison guards who will see it that some brothers get a shot at him.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Alvin Toffer wrote a book which became a term to describe this fear of rapid change, 'Future shock', and I think that it's something that people of the generation born between the 1940s and 1970s are probably dealing with. Even I, born in the 1980s, suffer a degree of it, you should see the mess I make trying to operate a smart phone, and the whole way that people can track you down online and hound you into submission through cyber-bullying terrifies me.

Sometimes though, people with good intentions do go a tad overboard, sometimes this is because they're preparing for a fight and when one doesn't happen they kind of go off anyway. I have in the past reacted over-defensively on a subject, primarily since I've expected more people to disagree with me than actually did. A form of turtling perhaps.
But well, that is how it goes, times do change, and everyone will always have their particular era that they will think of when 'times were better' and 'summers were long', and so forth.

In short:

I'm slightly dismayed that you wouldn't have assumed I read Future Shock (which I did about 30 years ago , along with the Late, Great Planet Earth.) Although I am quite sure it did not contain a chapter where society makes celebrities of people with mental disorders. You can imagine that's a shock.

Yes, you're right, every generation has to deal with the changes in technology and society. I've tried to resist the cliche that mature men dish out "what's the matter with kids today", but after my short stint in the classroom, I'm not optimistic.

I'm sure you knew some would disagree with you when you posted this subject. I've done that, too. Sometimes a topic just seems right for contentious discussion. I know you wanted to make the point that white people who commit mass murder should be called terrorists just like Arabs. I just think you jumped the gun a little, posting the thread before this guy and his motivations were established.

[Harvs]

After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australian firearm laws were changed for the better, we still have deaths from shootings but its nowhere as bad as it could have been had the law not changed. Have a read of this and then ask how will gun control work.

http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

[August]

Originally Posted by Harvs

ave a read of this and then ask how will gun control work.

It won't work because we Americans have a right to keep and bear arms therefore we don't need to ask permission from our government to possess one.

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by Harvs

After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australian firearm laws were changed for the better, we still have deaths from shootings but its nowhere as bad as it could have been had the law not changed. Have a read of this and then ask how will gun control work.

http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

Most of the outlawed firearms are still out there. And there are more firearms in general than there were before the "buyback". The laws haven't really done anything other than give people raised on Hollywood fantasy, a perceived sense of security.

[Harvs]

Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?

[Onkel Neal]

....the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.

Ah, well, screw that. Self defense is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. I'm not keen on being defenseless.

[Harvs]

There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns, your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock dont you think? There is no reason on earth to justify civilians owning military type weapons and handguns should only be issued for sporting purposes, its a sad reality that you will have plenty more mass shootings until the law changes.

[Buddahaid]

I have them and self defense isn't a reason I even consider. I own them simply because I can and want to.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I'm slightly dismayed that you wouldn't have assumed I read Future Shock (which I did about 30 years ago , along with the Late, Great Planet Earth.) Although I am quite sure it did not contain a chapter where society makes celebrities of people with mental disorders. You can imagine that's a shock.

Yes, you're right, every generation has to deal with the changes in technology and society. I've tried to resist the cliche that mature men dish out "what's the matter with kids today", but after my short stint in the classroom, I'm not optimistic.

I'm sure you knew some would disagree with you when you posted this subject. I've done that, too. Sometimes a topic just seems right for contentious discussion. I know you wanted to make the point that white people who commit mass murder should be called terrorists just like Arabs. I just think you jumped the gun a little, posting the thread before this guy and his motivations were established.

TBH I didn't even know the book existed until I was looking at the wiki for The Forever War. So you've got the drop on me there.
I must admit, I'm in a situation where I'm quite removed from the lower end of society living in the countryside where most of the populace are retired wealthy Londoners, so I'm a bit out of touch with the youth of today, in particular the inner city youth. However, there's good and bad in all of us, and some of the youth of today will become the great people of tomorrow whilst others will become the villains.
I think I may have jumped it a smidge too, I was going to make that direct phrase a few posts ago but figured that in the situation it was probably better to say 'put the cart before the horse'.
Still, it's got people talking and it's not been swept under the rug as 'just another shooting' which is good.
The biggest problem though is the solution, and I don't think that there actually is one that will work.

[August]

Originally Posted by Harvs

Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?

Well no, our constitution, specifically the first 10 Amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights which lists RKBA, just enumerates the rights of free men.

Preamble to the BoR:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

In other words there are certain human rights that the founding fathers specifically wanted set down in writing because they didn't trust future governments from trying to take them away which they constantly attempt to do.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Harvs

There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns, your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock dont you think?

We had a talk about this a while ago, in regards to the purposes of the Second Amendment and its relevance in the modern age. Give me a moment and I'll dig it up.
I think it starts from about here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Harvs

Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?

No. We consider it to be an inherent right. The Constitution proper is the guidebook for running the government. The Bill Of Rights is there to guarantee things the government is not allowed to touch.

Not that it always works that way.

Originally Posted by Harvs

There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns...

Not really. That's not what that Bill of Rights was about.

...your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock dont you think?

But the Second Amendment isn't about protecting individuals from mass shootings. It's about protecting ourselves from the government. I know it doesn't seem likely these days, but did you know that our Revolution actually started when the Colonial Governor sent troops to confiscate an armory full of privately owned cannons?

There is no reason on earth to justify civilians owning military type weapons...

Actually that's exactly what the Second Amendment is about. Did you know that during the Revolution and the War of 1812 the government gave Letters of Marque, and thus official military status, to privately owned ships armed with those same cannons? The government at that time relied on private citizens armed with the best modern weapons money could buy.

...and handguns should only be issued for sporting purposes...

Actually neither of those was considered a factor in 1791 (the year the Bill of Rights was introduced). The sole purpose for owning a gun was considered to be national defense. We can have that argument if you like, but your points so far have little to do with our reasons for things being the way we are.

...its a sad reality that you will have plenty more mass shootings until the law changes.

You're probably right. In fact despite what some here claim, it's true that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996, an in your case changing the law really did make a difference.

A part of the problem here is that it looks to us like for the sake of safety you're willing to go along with whatever the government says, while many of us consider the government to be the problem, not the solution. If a law like that were passed here, a large majority would just say "No" and become criminals themselves. Win or lose, it could lead to another Revolution. A lot of elected official know this, which is why getting such a law passed here would be a lot more difficult.

The more likely situation would be that many congressmen would try to get such a law passed, fail, and find themselves out of a job come the next election.

No, I don't pretend to have an answer. I'm just making observations.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A part of the problem here is that it looks to us like for the sake of safety you're willing to go along with whatever the government says, while many of us consider the government to be the problem, not the solution. If a law like that were passed here, a large majority would just say "No" and become criminals themselves. Win or lose, it could lead to another Revolution. A lot of elected official know this, which is why getting such a law passed here would be a lot more difficult.

The more likely situation would be that many congressmen would try to get such a law passed, fail, and find themselves out of a job come the next election.

No, I don't pretend to have an answer. I'm just making observations.

I think this is where between America and the rest of the world there is the vital disconnect. There's not many other countries out there that have such a fear of government, bordering in some cases on paranoia.
This is often classified by Americans as blind obedience to governments, whereas others would classify it as a form of trust.
I would ponder though, since 1787, how many times the US government has legitimately earned that distrust? Not just in a way that would upset those of a particular political leaning, but an active lurch into an area that the populace did not want it to go.
Many times people in the US will state that gun control is the first step into a tyrannical, dictatorial government (in particular a favourite copy-paste image is that one of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler saying 'These dictators agree, gun control works!' completely ignoring the relaxation of gun control in Nazi Germany. ) and this is logical, but one could argue that there are plenty of other ways to curb a peoples freedom than removing firearms, and in that respects there are some nations that it could be argued have greater freedoms in areas than the US has but who practice firearm regulation in a stricter manner than the US.
However, one cannot simply take over 200 years of culture and throw it in the dustbin, and I think that's something that people outside of the US don't realise just how entrenched in the culture of the US the firearm is, and how little trust towards government there is in the US.
It's something that's going to come to a head there at some point in the future, and it could, legitimately, lead to civil strife. All we, as non-Americans, can do is to a) try to understand the US viewpoint if we're able to, and b) lend our support where possible.