# Active shooter reportedly attacks TV crew in Virginia



## baconbits (Aug 26, 2015)

> *Active shooter reportedly attacks TV crew in Virginia*
> 
> Published August 26, 2015FoxNews.com
> Facebook185 Twitter64 livefyre203 Email Print
> ...





My news apps are saying two members of a news crew were shot down.  This is the only article I could find on it right now.


----------



## Blue (Aug 26, 2015)

Meanwhile inactive shooters remain a clear and present danger.


----------



## God Movement (Aug 26, 2015)

Pretty fucking crazy


----------



## Shodai (Aug 26, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34062118

Fucking hell that's grim


----------



## Deputy Myself (Aug 26, 2015)

in before racebait and gunbait

RIP to the two newspeople


----------



## sworder (Aug 26, 2015)

pretty sad, apparently this was the guy's last day before he moved out of the state and the girl was engaged

RIP


----------



## Shodai (Aug 26, 2015)

Americans will still defend their gun laws though

Every time

This is the price of freedom


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 26, 2015)

well

yes

i don't think anyone who advocates the banning of firearms truly comprehends the resourcefulness of our citizens 

if someone is committed to going postal, they're gonna obtain a gun, legal or not


----------



## Amanda (Aug 26, 2015)

RIP


Now let the comment section madness start. Internet, the stage is yours.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 26, 2015)

More guns are the answer. Obviously.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 26, 2015)

gLADos said:


> well
> 
> yes
> 
> ...


Yes but they're far more likely to find their way on to law enforcement's radar if they have to go the illegal route.

That doesn't guarantee they'll be stopped ahead of time. But it certainly raises the odds.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 26, 2015)

idk sunny
i know like 3 different people i can talk to in order to get a 'dirty' gun if i wanted
of course we live in a major city...that's also a major port
but i also exactly don't proactively keep ties to the criminal underworld


----------



## Zyrax (Aug 26, 2015)

The shooter Actually posted video of him shooting them and uploaded it on twitter

(Its suspended now)


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 26, 2015)

gLADos said:


> idk sunny
> i know like 3 different people i can talk to in order to get a 'dirty' gun if i wanted
> of course we live in a major city...that's also a major port
> but i also exactly don't proactively keep ties to the criminal underworld


Exactly.

But if you're say, some asshole who wants to kill his wife and wants to get a gun illegally, he could end up taking a wrong turn on the internet and end up going to a sting site. Much as the case is with a lot of the stopped terrorism cases.

It probably wouldn't stop gangbangers. But the casual murderer? Quite possibly!

And that would make a significant dent.


----------



## tari101190 (Aug 26, 2015)

gLADos said:


> well
> 
> yes
> 
> ...


Please stop this nonsense you delusional idiot.

A week doesn't go by without multiple people getting shot in america by legally acquired guns alone.

Countries without legal access to guns function just fine without them, and the number of incidents involving guns per year are a fraction of the amount of gun crime america faces on a regular basis. If not non-existent.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 26, 2015)

To be fair those 'crimes of passion' such as spouse slaying don't tend to ones where they get shot. 

Stabbed, slashed, severed...and so forth is more often the modus operandi.

I just think that people who cry for a banning of firearms are incredibly short-sighted, it's a bandaid fix to the gaping wound that is mental health issues in this country.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Aug 26, 2015)

haha here we go
dumb americans actually defending guns


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

I saw the video. RIP. The dude has been tweeting out videos of the shooting and on Facebook but his accounts have been suspended. Shit is crazy.


----------



## Chou (Aug 26, 2015)

A person gets stabbed: "How horrible!"
Someone gets killed in a car crash: "What a tragedy!"
Some one is shot: "BAN GUNS NOW RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"


----------



## ThunderCunt (Aug 26, 2015)

This thread is gonna be "guns are needed because mah Freedom!"


----------



## Shodai (Aug 26, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> The shooter Actually posted video of him shooting them and uploaded it on twitter
> 
> (Its suspended now)



I saw screenshots of that video, it's beyond fucked up. I didn't actually watch it, because I am thankfully not that depraved.

It looks like a FPS, it's so weird that it's actually real. Felt bad for even looking at pictures, I wouldn't want that video being spread if that was my loved one. 

This entire thing is insane.

Reports are the perp has shot himself.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 26, 2015)

gLADos said:


> To be fair those 'crimes of passion' such as spouse slaying don't tend to ones where they get shot.
> 
> Stabbed, slashed, severed...and so forth is more often the modus operandi.
> 
> I just think that people who cry for a banning of firearms are incredibly short-sighted, it's a bandaid fix to the gaping wound that is mental health issues in this country.


whynotboth.jpg

Motive and means.

Stop the motive (mental health) and stop the means (guns)

Problem not necessarily solved but significantly reduced.


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

Shodai said:


> I saw screenshots of that video, it's beyond fucked up. I didn't actually watch it, because I am thankfully not that depraved.
> 
> It looks like a FPS, it's so weird that it's actually real. Felt bad for even looking at pictures, I wouldn't want that video being spread if that was my loved one.
> 
> ...



>depraved to watch a video

Lel


----------



## Reyes (Aug 26, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> whynotboth.jpg
> 
> Motive and means.
> 
> ...



Pretty much, we need to tackle both these problems.


----------



## HaxHax (Aug 26, 2015)

ThunderCunt said:


> This thread is gonna be "guns are needed because mah Freedom!"



The real victim here?

Not the two dead people.

The real victim is muh guns.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Aug 26, 2015)

Suzuku said:


> >depraved to watch a video
> 
> Lel



I bet you love the /b/ gore threads and save all the ISIS beheading vids to your harddrive.

You sick fuck


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> whynotboth.jpg
> 
> Motive and means.
> 
> ...



Hey! A tragedy just happened, now isn't the time to talk about guns in our society!


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

I've never even posted on /b/. As usual people make the most out of dumbshit and then go be a hypocrite by labeling others because of different values. Smh.


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

By this logic anyone who plays violent video games should be seen as depraved tbh. Or maybe shit like skyrim with fake violence is fine but fps games are disgusting. This is where it's going next.


----------



## Sauce (Aug 26, 2015)

I saw the videos and the camera crew/reporter isn't even aware that the guy has a gun out stalking them. The creepiest part is that you can hear him breathing. When he begins to fire he misses but after the camera is down he lets loose. To think this guy has the balls to put his killings on social media shows how crazy he is. Police will catch him in no time. Senseless and brutal murders.


----------



## Krory (Aug 26, 2015)

ITT: People using murder for their own agenda.

Perhaps worse than the news station cannibalizing for ratings.


----------



## Krory (Aug 26, 2015)

Suzuku said:


> By this logic anyone who plays violent video games should be a seen as depraved tbh.



TIL video games are exactly the same as real people.

Huh.


----------



## Reyes (Aug 26, 2015)

Conflicting reports.

BBC said he is dead while other places like the local news and CNN say there still a pulse.

LifeFlight was called to the scene so he probably in critical condition.


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

Sauce said:


> To think this guy has the gull to put his killings on social media shows how crazy he is. Police will catch him in no time. A senseless and brutal murder.


he dead. 



Lara Croft said:


> TIL video games are exactly the same as real people.
> 
> Huh.


It's simulated killing and the models look almost photo realistic now. Ofc it's an extreme example by the merits remain. Just because you're fake killing doesn't change it. Does that make you deprived? No.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 26, 2015)

Lara Croft said:


> ITT: People using murder for their own agenda.
> 
> Perhaps worse than the news station cannibalizing for ratings.


Because its really an agenda to say hmm, maybe if we want less people to be shot to death its a good idea to remove the means by which that happens?


----------



## Sauce (Aug 26, 2015)

Who do you speak of Reyes?


----------



## Reyes (Aug 26, 2015)

Sauce said:


> Who do you speak of Reyes?



The killer, but like I said there still conflicting reports on wither he is dead or not.

WDBJ, station of the victims and state police are reporting he still has a pulse after a self inflicted gun-shot and in critical condition.


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Because its really an agenda to say hmm, maybe if we want less people to be shot to death its a good idea to remove the means by which that happens?


I'm not pro guns, but I wish people would just drop it. It's not realistic to ban guns in this country. There would literally be a second civil war and anarchy in this country over it. If you don't like it and live in America move to a different country tbh. Not worth starting a war that will end up killing even more people than if you just left it alone.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

It's not about banning guns though.


----------



## Krory (Aug 26, 2015)

Suzuku said:


> I'm not pro guns, but I wish people would just drop it. It's not realistic to ban guns in this country. There would literally be a second civil war and anarchy in this country over it. If you don't like it and live in America move to a different country tbh. Not worth starting a war that will end up killing even more people than if you just left it alone.



Wow, you're an even worse troll than me.


----------



## GRIMMM (Aug 26, 2015)

"If only the reporter and camera man had guns to protect themselves!"

Still lurking patiently, waiting on this gem of a comment showing up somewhere.


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

Even if you make them harder to get it will just make the black market bigger. Guns will be on the streets no matter what. Pointless "movement".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

Guess we should just throw up our hands and do jack shit on anything because there will be people that will do what they want anyway, right?


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

In case of guns yes. It's a pointless fight and the energy can be used elsewhere.

It'll just be like making weed illegal and prohibition. It's just going to make illegal guns more popular.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

What the hell do you even know about the matter, really? There's plenty that can be done on a legislative level, like actually enforce our laws on them and review those in place to determine their effectiveness. You're stupidly talking about it being a waste of energy when violent crimes with guns is one of our biggest concerns in this country. For a nation of the U.S.'s standing the rate at which it occurs is shameful, in the same league as Central American countries.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 26, 2015)

Apparently he reported folks to the EEOC right before he was let go/quit. EEOC handles serious changes of workforce discrimination. 

I also saw one of the videos he shot. Very very disturbing. RIP to the victims and prayers to the families as well.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 26, 2015)

Gun control arguments are good emotional responses, but the vast majority of people that own guns don't kill innocent people and most murders are committed by people that don't have a right to own guns.

Further regulations on guns won't help the issue since most murders wouldn't even be affected by the proposed fixes.  Ultimately a lot of the gun control crowd smacks of "we have to do SOMETHING" implying that every murder is avoidable.  Some aren't and no amount of laws will ever make a perfect system.

On the other hand many gun owners prevent crimes.  Some estimate that gun owners prevent over a million crimes per year.  Any regulations that are discussed need to be carefully targeted towards people obtaining guns who have mental issues and steer clear of those sane individuals that legally obtain firearms for their own legal uses.


----------



## ThunderCunt (Aug 26, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Because its really an agenda to say hmm, maybe if we want less people to be shot to death its a good idea to remove the means by which that happens?



your posts warms my cold heart <3


----------



## Suzuku (Aug 26, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What the hell do you even know about the matter, really? There's plenty that can be done on a legislative level, like actually enforce our laws on them and review those in place to determine their effectiveness. You're stupidly talking about it being a waste of energy when violent crimes with guns is one of our biggest concerns in this country. For a nation of the U.S.'s standing the rate at which it occurs is shameful, in the same league as Central American countries.


History tells us outlawing or making harder to get something that's popular in this country just results in it getting more popular. Takes grade school level knowledge to know that. A pointless fight that will just blow up in everyone's faces fighting for it. Not that it matters, cause shit ain't ever getting done about it lol.


----------



## Sauce (Aug 26, 2015)

GRIMMM said:


> *"If only the reporter and camera man had guns to protect themselves!"*
> 
> Still lurking patiently, waiting on this gem of a comment showing up somewhere.



You know what? I don't even think that argument could have been made. During the video, he's literally right behind them. Their sense of awareness is completely off.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

baconbits said:


> Gun control arguments are good emotional responses, but the vast majority of people that own guns don't kill innocent people and most murders are committed by people that don't have a right to own guns.
> 
> Further regulations on guns won't help the issue since most murders wouldn't even be affected by the proposed fixes.  Ultimately a lot of the gun control crowd smacks of "we have to do SOMETHING" implying that every murder is avoidable.  Some aren't and no amount of laws will ever make a perfect system.
> 
> On the other hand many gun owners prevent crimes.  Some estimate that gun owners prevent over a million crimes per year.  Any regulations that are discussed need to be carefully targeted towards people obtaining guns who have mental issues and steer clear of those sane individuals that legally obtain firearms for their own legal uses.



That's such a lazy strawman. Of course most people that own firearms don't kill, although other incidents go up and they are at risk for other firearm-related incidents. It also doesn't come with the idea that every murder can be prevented, but based on systems that have gun ownership and actually do enforce their laws, there is precedent set that violence and murders involving firearms can be reduced. Also you ignore that such measures are not mutually exclusive to aims of taking guns off the streets, or stopping illegal weapons exports as well. Even with a dropping rate of violence and homicide involving firearms, it's still at a ridiculously high level. 

I don't get how you talk about making emotional arguments when you go on to make yourself. I mean where did you get that statistic? 



There's absolutely nothing supporting such a claim. Did you get that from the NRA or John Lott?



			
				Suzuku said:
			
		

> History tells us outlawing or making harder to get something that's popular in this country just results in it getting more popular. Takes grade school level knowledge to know that. A pointless fight that will just blow up in everyone's faces fighting for it. Not that it matters, cause shit ain't ever getting done about it lol.



Again. Not about banning guns. Second, no, it doesn't. There are a number of things we have outlawed or made harder to get that doe not result in them getting popular. Gun ownership has been going down the past few years despite production going up. This is just pure laziness in response to a very real issue that needs to be addressed sooner than later. Yeah, it's a complex issue, there are steps that can be taken as I said like actually enforcing our existing laws to begin with, that can be done to start addressing the matter. Just throwing your hands up and saying 'it is what it is' is not a valid response to the issue. Because if we followed that logic on everything else we wouldn't have any society to begin with.


----------



## Romanticide (Aug 26, 2015)

How sad. And the shooter even made a POV video of him shooting them too. Crazy fuck.


----------



## GRIMMM (Aug 26, 2015)

Sauce said:


> You know what? I don't even think that argument could have been made. During the video, he's literally right behind them. Their sense of awareness is completely off.



Oh I am well aware of that... but I'm still waiting on the comment.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 26, 2015)

It's a premeditated murder
>live on TV
>and about race issue

God


----------



## Shodai (Aug 26, 2015)

Suzuku said:


> >depraved to watch a video
> 
> Lel



Yes, it's pretty fucked up to want to see that video or take pleasure and/or excitement in the act of watching it

It's basically snuff/vore


----------



## baconbits (Aug 26, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's such a lazy strawman. Of course most people that own firearms don't kill, although other incidents go up and they are at risk for other firearm-related incidents.



Incidents where citizens prevent crimes go up as well.  And saying firearm related incidents go up when people have firearms is about as meaningful as saying car accidents happen when people drive cars.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It also doesn't come with the idea that every murder can be prevented, but based on systems that have gun ownership and actually do enforce their laws, there is precedent set that violence and murders involving firearms can be reduced.



I don't see that anywhere there is gun control.  Chicago and D.C. are both examples of the exact opposite trend.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Also you ignore that such measures are not mutually exclusive to aims of taking guns off the streets, or stopping illegal weapons exports as well. Even with a dropping rate of violence and homicide involving firearms, it's still at a ridiculously high level.



Gun regulations won't take guns off the street.  By definition guns "on the street" were already obtained illegally.  Gun exports also won't be affected by regulating gun owners here.  That doesn't even make sense.

Third, there's actually an inverse relationship between murders and legal gun ownership.  Studies to the contrary have been debunked for good reason:





Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't get how you talk about making emotional arguments when you go on to make yourself. I mean where did you get that statistic?
> 
> 
> 
> There's absolutely nothing supporting such a claim. Did you get that from the NRA or John Lott?



Common sense and statistics easily found in a google search.  Its obvious that a guy attacking a neighbor will be intimidated by another neighbor bring out his weapon and issuing direct orders to desist or be shot down.  Arguing anything else but that is ridiculous.


----------



## Saishin (Aug 26, 2015)

Poor journalists


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

baconbits said:


> Incidents where citizens prevent crimes go up as well.



Source that claim.



> And saying firearm related incidents go up when people have firearms is about as meaningful as saying car accidents happen when people drive cars.



So, you're just gonna sidestep the suicide and incidents of homicide between related individuals now? Or the number of gun injuries that go up too. See it's a dumb comparison because in contrast to an automobile, a firearm is not someone a person uses in their daily life. Yet these incidents go up. 



> I don't see that anywhere there is gun control.  Chicago and D.C. are both examples of the exact opposite trend.



Because you are dishonest. Canada and New England have gun measures, and lower violence. Not to mention the article I provided for you. 



> Gun regulations won't take guns off the street.  By definition guns "on the street" were already obtained illegally.  Gun exports also won't be affected by regulating gun owners here.  That doesn't even make sense.



You don't pay attention. Gun regulations are a start, taking guns off the street is a separate campaign entirely as well as stopping illegal arms sales. 



> Third, there's actually an inverse relationship between murders and legal gun ownership.  Studies to the contrary have been debunked for good reason:



You can't even cite an objective source in contrast to what I attempted to do for yourself. What's more is that your source uses some SERIOUS data-mining to establish a very skewed point.

_Usually only a small set of countries are used in any comparison, typically limited to so-called ?civilized,? as Hemenway or Morgan calls them, or ?developed? countries. It isn?t clear what is meant by ?civilized? countries, so what can Americans learn from these other ?developed? nations? Using the developed nations as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), developed countries in fact show that more gun ownership as measured by the Small Arms Survey is associated with fewer homicides.  First, this is how homicide rates vary across developed countries._

Like this. It's such a tenuously made point. It's selectively using data to correlate two factors without any real establishment. Hell, the data it uses undermines its point. 



> Common sense and statistics easily found in a google search.  Its obvious that a guy attacking a neighbor will be intimidated by another neighbor bring out his weapon and issuing direct orders to desist or be shot down.  Arguing anything else but that is ridiculous.



Once again, just dismissing what you can't adequately addressed. Why am I not surprised?  

I mean, that entire article not only addresses, but more effectively undermines what you had just sourced to myself.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 26, 2015)

Another shooting! 

Well how do we deal with this? 

Hmm, I think the first step is to deny that anything could have been done. If someone wants to do these things having regulations in place, even regulations that make it harder for people to buy guns when they're mentally ill or regulations that make it easier for the government to tell who has guns and how many, aren't the answer. 

What we should be asking is where the victims guns were and why they didn't defend themselves. 

Also we should make some snide remark about how it's the ^ (use bro) that are ruining this country.


----------



## Sauce (Aug 26, 2015)

Shodai said:


> Yes, it's pretty fucked up to want to see that video or take pleasure and/or excitement in the act of watching it
> 
> It's basically snuff/vore



 That video is hardly snuff. I take it you haven't seen any beheadings that people love to share on the internet as well.
---
On a side note, it seems like he was savoring his kill. He could have easily shot them both in the head but for some reason decided to take pleasure in recording her. Sick.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 26, 2015)

Shodai said:


> Yes, it's pretty fucked up to want to see that video or take pleasure and/or excitement in the act of watching it
> 
> It's basically snuff/vore



Yeah I saw the POV video a few hours ago. Very disturbed, and I wish I hadn't done that.


----------



## Reyes (Aug 26, 2015)

Welp the coward died on the way to the hospital, couldn't even face anyone.

At least the third victim is in stable condition now.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 26, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Source that claim.





Just a snippet:



> Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
> 
> * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
> 
> ...



I only stopped there for brevity.  The next point is about how gun owners kill criminals, which is also a benefit of gun ownership.



Seto Kaiba said:


> So, you're just gonna sidestep the suicide and incidents of homicide between related individuals now?



No, but those won't be prevented by more regulation.  So there is no reason to bring it up.  Pretending I'm sidestepping an issue also implies you brought it up in our discussion.  I didn't see you talk about this one.  If you did I honestly just missed it.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Or the number of gun injuries that go up too. See it's a dumb comparison because in contrast to an automobile, a firearm is not someone a person uses in their daily life. Yet these incidents go up.



Its still a stupid point.  Car accidents go up where cars are, too.  Of course gun injuries will go up where there are guns.  That's just silly to even say.  Let me jump on your obvious argument bandwagon:

"There are more sex crimes in areas that are populated."
"There are condoms used in areas that have more sex."
"There are more airplane accidents by people who ride airplanes than those who don't."





Seto Kaiba said:


> Because you are dishonest. Canada and New England have gun measures, and lower violence. Not to mention the article I provided for you.



Its not dishonest to provide the obvious counter point.  In the interest of fairness let's presume that for ever case of gun control you point out I can point out the opposite.  My argument would win.  It would show gun control is inconsequential to the rate of violence.

But I won't concede the point, which makes my argument even stronger.  Gun control makes people more vulnerable and for obvious reason.  The only people who pay attention to gun laws are law abiding citizens.  Criminals will still run around armed.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You don't pay attention. Gun regulations are a start, taking guns off the street is a separate campaign entirely as well as stopping illegal arms sales.



You weren't clear.  And how will you take guns off the street?  Do you think police departments are currently just allowing criminals to carry guns, reading this post and saying "I never thought of that before..."?  Police departments already target illegal guns and the trade thereof.  They also target crack, cocaine and heroine.  Because of that you can't find any of those things on the street, right? 

A realistic response is that guns will remain on the streets despite our best efforts.  We can continue to expect gangbangers to be armed.  The only way to counter that is a good police force and citizens willing to protect themselves.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You can't even cite an objective source in contrast to what I attempted to do for yourself. What's more is that your source uses some SERIOUS data-mining to establish a very skewed point.



Not at all.  One of my sources actually explains where they get the data and why the comparison of our murder rates to other countries can be misleading.  You might learn something from reading that.

I personally don't care if the source is objective.  This issue is so politically charged that everyone is going to have an axe to grind.  I care about people who can back up what they say.  Like this guy:





Seto Kaiba said:


> Like this. It's such a tenuously made point. It's selectively using data to correlate two factors without any real establishment. Hell, the data it uses undermines its point.



You didn't read the entire article.  That's obvious:



> The relationship between homicide rates and the supposed measure of gun ownership provided the Small Arms Survey shows that even with their obviously biased measure of gun ownership, more guns ownership is associated with fewer homicides, though the relationship is not statistically significant.





> Finally, as an aside, one has to be very careful in making comparisons across countries because numbers are not always comparable. For example, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers typically ?exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise? (Report to Parliament). A more detailed discussion of the difference between ?offenses initially recorded as homicide? and ?offenses currently recorded as homicide? in England and Wales based on the outcomes of trials is available starting on page 9 here. While this adjustment reduces overall homicides by about 15 percent, it has a larger impact on firearm homicides because those tend to be the ones most likely to involve gang fights that are much more difficult to solve. The problem isn?t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but there would be a sizable reduction in the reported US homicide rate if this approach were used here. For example, from 2000 to 2008 only about 62 percent of US homicides are even cleared by arrest. The numbers in the UK appear to be only adjusted based on cases where charges are brought. In that case, it is useful to note that in the US only about half of those arrested are eventually convicted (also here).





Seto Kaiba said:


> Once again, just dismissing what you can't adequately addressed. Why am I not surprised?



I didn't dismiss it.  You made another accusation you can't substantiate.  That doesn't put an additional burden on me.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I mean, that entire article not only addresses, but more effectively undermines what you had just sourced to myself.



Not at all.  Common sense will tell you that a criminal confronted with an armed person is less likely to be aggressive than a criminal confronted by a person that isn't armed.


----------



## Amanda (Aug 26, 2015)

You could just lock the thread and post a link to any previous gun related thread...



Anyway,  apparently he shot himself. Happy passing into hell. I don't even care what sob story he had. He murdered two persons and recorded it to upload it online. Nothing excuses that.

Oh, I doubt not, some will still cry he was a poor victim soul.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)

Deserved for their white privilege.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Aug 26, 2015)

HE DINDU NUFFIN


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

baconbits said:


> Just a snippet:
> 
> I only stopped there for brevity.  The next point is about how gun owners kill criminals, which is also a benefit of gun ownership.



You keep listing sources that have every reason to present skewed data.

Are you even paying attention to your sources, and what they are sourcing? It's an entirely circular matter here. 





Directing addressing the claim you've been throwing around. You need to pay attention to your sources and if they actually have a desired narrative to present or not. I didn't come at with liberal sources for that reason.  



> No, but those won't be prevented by more regulation.  So there is no reason to bring it up.  Pretending I'm sidestepping an issue also implies you brought it up in our discussion.  I didn't see you talk about this one.  If you did I honestly just missed it.



Uh, there's plenty reason. Because that plays into the overall issue we have with guns. Too many people are not properly educated on proper and safe usage or storage of firearms despite legally owning them. There's also in regard to suicide, factoring in prospective owner's state of mind. Because a suicidal thought can turn homicidal. Especially those that don't want to die alone. 



> Its still a stupid point.  Car accidents go up where cars are, too.  Of course gun injuries will go up where there are guns.  That's just silly to even say.  Let me jump on your obvious argument bandwagon:



It's not a stupid point because again, we do not use guns as part of our daily lives the way we use automobiles. You are intentionally trying to dodge the clear implications here because it completely undermines the point you were trying to make to begin with.



> Its not dishonest to provide the obvious counter point.  In the interest of fairness let's presume that for ever case of gun control you point out I can point out the opposite.  My argument would win.  It would show gun control is inconsequential to the rate of violence.



Your argument would win how? Because there's more a case for gun control working to reduce violence and homicide by firearm than not. Domestically and internationally, people like you just cherrypick places like Chicago to make a point. Ignoring that despite Chicago having strict gun laws, they are also poorly enforced. Especially in more dilapidated areas, the infrastructure in general is poor, and law enforcement is overextended. The proper resources are not in place. Yet you take a look at cities in Canada that are separated by a mere lake or river from their U.S. counterparts and their incident of firerarm related homicides and violence are significantly lower.



> But I won't concede the point, which makes my argument even stronger.  Gun control makes people more vulnerable and for obvious reason.  The only people who pay attention to gun laws are law abiding citizens.  Criminals will still run around armed.



Stubbornness doesn't lend validity to your argument, the claim you've just made has no basis. 

That's such a stupid argument, the only people who pay attention to laws period are those that can function under such standards and abide by those laws. That doesn't mean we do away with them because there exist those that don't. 



> You weren't clear.  And how will you take guns off the street?  Do you think police departments are currently just allowing criminals to carry guns, reading this post and saying "I never thought of that before..."?  Police departments already target illegal guns and the trade thereof.  They also target crack, cocaine and heroine.  Because of that you can't find any of those things on the street, right?



None of that happens overnight, and it is not realistic to reduce it to zero. Yet reducing it significantly is a realistic goal. You keep trying to strawman may points instead of actually addressing them. The resources to address these issues vary from place to place, and in areas like Chicago most notably, those resources are limited. You keep thinking you're making a clever point, but you just show how you can't address what I'm saying with presenting those ridiculous absolutes. Also, FYI, circulation of those drugs have been significantly reduced in the past 30 years or so. 



> A realistic response is that guns will remain on the streets despite our best efforts.  We can continue to expect gangbangers to be armed.  The only way to counter that is a good police force and citizens willing to protect themselves.



Which is absolutely redundant to state here, because people like you keep going on these strawmen of idiotic absolutes when people try to discuss regulation of guns and addressing circulation of firearms on the streets. 



> Not at all.  One of my sources actually explains where they get the data and why the comparison of our murder rates to other countries can be misleading.  You might learn something from reading that.



They mine the data, to a severe degree. Yet even in their attempt to do so, the charts they provide ultimately undermine the point they are making. 



> I personally don't care if the source is objective.  This issue is so politically charged that everyone is going to have an axe to grind.  I care about people who can back up what they say.  Like this guy:



Incorrect. There are objective sources on the matter, and I've made effort to find as close to those as I can find. You are just trying to justify presenting a biased narrative regardless of the facts. 


Claim already addressed in initial response.



> You didn't read the entire article.  That's obvious:
> 
> I didn't dismiss it.  You made another accusation you can't substantiate.  That doesn't put an additional burden on me.



I did read the article, that's how I noticed the data-mining. That's how I additionally noticed a number of claims made in it are ones that are commonly debunked; and not by liberal sources at that. 



> Not at all.  Common sense will tell you that a criminal confronted with an armed person is less likely to be aggressive than a criminal confronted by a person that isn't armed.



Unless that criminal is armed.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)




----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 26, 2015)

What they did or said to be called racist btw ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Aug 26, 2015)

The guy worked at the news station from what I read so this is him going Postal.


----------



## Sauce (Aug 26, 2015)

Even if it was a racist station that's no excuse for killing people. Why are some people so fucking dumb 
And fuck that ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) for taking the easy way/or trying to take the easy way out after being caught.


----------



## Zyrax (Aug 26, 2015)




----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)

> n the 23-page document faxed to ABC News, the writer says “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS” and his legal name is Vester Lee Flanagan II.” He writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting:
> 
> “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”
> 
> “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."





Dat new era of Obama race relations!


----------



## Xiammes (Aug 26, 2015)

>racebait
>gun control
>virgina

I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 26, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Also we should make some snide remark about how it's the ^ (use bro) that are ruining this country.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)

Le M?le Dominant said:


>



My snide comment wasnt about black people, it was about Obama.


----------



## Amanda (Aug 26, 2015)

C'moon, let's do this. I'm all anxious for US civil war part II.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 26, 2015)

Oh Jesus, Mega. Please don't make this about race.

This guy was totally insane and used race as a means ot justify what he was doing. he claimed that the Virginia tech shooter was his boy. 

Don't do that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

You shouldn't expect much from Mega at this point, Raiden.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 26, 2015)

I actually didn't expect him to say that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

Eh, it was a predictable response on his part, but that's just my take. The act is old, he has no interest in rectifying the faults in it. Shouldn't expect anything of him, at least nothing meaningful.


----------



## Zyrax (Aug 26, 2015)

In a way it is about Race in that The Tensions that People have been sweeping under the carpet is coming out. 
Sure MOST American Whites and Blacks don't hate each other
But there are a lot of  individuals who think that The Blacks/The Whites are out to get them
The best for Americans to do is to not let these incidents increase the tensions and dismiss the people who do them as delusional


----------



## SLB (Aug 26, 2015)

WAD said:


> well
> 
> yes
> 
> ...



banning firearms outright isn't exactly feasible anyway.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 26, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> In a way it is about Race in that The Tensions that People have been sweeping under the carpet is coming out.
> Sure MOST American Whites and Blacks don't hate each other
> But there are a lot of  individuals who think that The Blacks/The Whites are out to get them
> The best for Americans to do is to not let these incidents increase the tensions and dismiss the people who do them as delusional



Experts are saying that psychopaths often do stuff like this. They find an issue to legitimize injustice and use it to justify whatever they plan to do. 



> Eh, it was a predictable response on his part, but that's just my take. The act is old, he has no interest in rectifying the faults in it. Shouldn't expect anything of him, at least nothing meaningful.



ok.


----------



## Reyes (Aug 26, 2015)

Moody said:


> banning firearms outright isn't exactly feasible anyway.



In this country at this point yeah, but that doesn't mean we should keep the status que.


----------



## SLB (Aug 26, 2015)

definitely.

adequate gun regulation is really a no-brainer. the same way you need to prove you're capable of driving a vehicle and maintaining it, you should be able to prove you can purchase and handle a firearm. maybe not as thorough, but somewhere along those lines.


----------



## Reyes (Aug 26, 2015)

Moody said:


> definitely.
> 
> adequate gun regulation is really a no-brainer. the same way you need to prove you're capable of driving a vehicle and maintaining it, you should be able to prove you can purchase and handle a firearm. maybe not as thorough, but somewhere along those lines.



Pretty much, there needs to be better testing/regulations for getting guns.  Extended the waiting period for better background checks, have renewal periods where you have to get a mental health check to keep your license, invest money in mental health, not being able to get guns without a background check or waiting period at gun shows.

Hell tax ammo don't sell guns at stores like Wal-mart.

Steps like this helps, hell Wal-mart no longer selling AR-15 no more.  Even though hand guns are the problem


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)

I wonder if Barry is gonna send down Loretta lynch and Biden to the funerals like he did with trayvon, mike brown, Gardner, and the charleston stuff. Something tells me probably not


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

Moody said:


> definitely.
> 
> adequate gun regulation is really a no-brainer. the same way you need to prove you're capable of driving a vehicle and maintaining it, you should be able to prove you can purchase and handle a firearm. maybe not as thorough, but somewhere along those lines.



It gets tiresome when people keep trying to pretend as if people are calling for a ban of guns completely. A big reason why dialogue never progresses on this as many issues is it's a matter tied strongly to corporate interest as well.


----------



## Reyes (Aug 26, 2015)

My mistake, Wal-mart is no longer selling any assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and other high-capacity weapons


----------



## Kanga (Aug 26, 2015)

That video was hard to watch.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Aug 26, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> I wonder if Barry is gonna send down Loretta lynch and Biden to the funerals like he did with trayvon, mike brown, Gardner, and the charleston stuff. Something tells me probably not



So only White People can go AWOL now?


----------



## RAGING BONER (Aug 26, 2015)

itt: YuroTrash and other inferiors bitching about gun culture all because of their faux outrage at someone they don't know getting shot.


----------



## Krory (Aug 26, 2015)

That awkward moment when everyone *but* Mega thinks there's more to Obama than his race.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)

RAGING BONER said:


> itt: YuroTrash and other inferiors bitching about gun culture all because of their faux outrage at someone they don't know getting shot.



Never mind an ak47 wielding Muslim is rampaging around perfect gun laws Europe ever other week these days


----------



## Krory (Aug 26, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> I wonder if Barry is gonna send down Loretta lynch and Biden to the funerals like he did with trayvon, mike brown, Gardner, and the charleston stuff. Something tells me probably not



Nah, THAT publicity stunt wouldn't work as well.


----------



## Savior (Aug 26, 2015)

More shooting in America. What's new? The country is seriously broken.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 26, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It gets tiresome when people keep trying to pretend as if people are calling for a ban of guns completely. A big reason why dialogue never progresses on this as many issues is it's a matter tied strongly to corporate interest as well.



Um, but there is a _significant_ portion of people who are calling for a Prohibition-like response to events like these.

And yes, they are the reason dialogue never progresses. They are the feminazis to your feminist movement:


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

WAD said:


> Um, but there is a _significant_ portion of people who are calling for a Prohibition-like response to events like these.
> 
> And yes, they are the reason dialogue never progresses. They are the feminazis to your feminist movement:



And there are people who always go "now isn't the time to discuss this" in regard to a gun-related tragedy. You can't just ignore the other side that tries to pretend like there isn't an issue at all.


----------



## Stunna (Aug 26, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> Deserved for their white privilege.





Caitlyn Jenner said:


> HE DINDU NUFFIN


lol**


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Aug 26, 2015)

If only they had guns


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Aug 26, 2015)

How can I be like you?

I kept seeing the video on /b/ all last night. Annoying as fuck, would of watched it sooner if I knew it was real.

Another tragedy  America could of stopped. This guy wanted to go out in a blaze of glory and he got it


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 26, 2015)

So what the pro-gun lobby ITT is advocating regarding gun control is essentially: do nothing.

Because that’s been working so well for you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 26, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> I wonder if Barry is gonna send down Loretta lynch and Biden to the funerals like he did with trayvon, mike brown, Gardner, and the charleston stuff. Something tells me probably not



Look everyone, Racial Harrison showed up. 

I like how you make it seem like whites are the ones historically treated badly in this country.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Look everyone, Racial Harrison showed up.
> 
> I like how you make it seem like whites are the ones historically treated badly in this country.



Where did anything I said suggest that.

Barry however is a race baiter and doesn't give a shit about this kind of stuff outside of that context. Trayvon Martin is his son, Kathryn Steinle is an annoyance.

And racial harrison is a shit name come up with something better plz.


----------



## Blue (Aug 26, 2015)

"Racial Harrison" doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 26, 2015)

Neither does blaming Obama Dan : V.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 26, 2015)

Anything with harrison is shit tbh.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 26, 2015)

MbS said:


> Anything with harrison is shit tbh.



dick pics when?


----------



## Blue (Aug 26, 2015)

Raiden said:


> Neither does blaming Obama Dan : V.



Nobody BLAMED Obama, Megaharry just said that the ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) won't say a word about this despite calling a worthless thug "the son I might have had" and sending the vice president to his funeral.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 26, 2015)

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that he probably will make a comment that's not too long after the actual murder. The President didn't make that comment until a month after Trayvon was killed.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 26, 2015)

Blue in denial.


----------



## Kanga (Aug 26, 2015)

Raiden said:


> I'm going to take a wild guess and say that he probably will make a comment that's not too long after the actual murder. The President didn't make that comment until a month after Trayvon was killed.




He already did.


----------



## Black Superman (Aug 26, 2015)

RIP to the victims of the shooting.


----------



## Xerces (Aug 26, 2015)

WAD said:


> well
> 
> yes
> 
> ...



This exactly. 

A population capable of defending itself, is ultimately a safer population. US politicians are already trying for a gun-grab, its sickening.


----------



## Lucaniel (Aug 26, 2015)

WAD said:


> well
> 
> yes
> 
> ...



illicit guns are so readily available that the random law-abiding square citizen who's never even smoked weed [this is a way of saying that they have zero experience with the extralegal] can get their hands on one w/o any idea of how to actually do that?



WAD said:


> idk sunny
> i know like 3 different people i can talk to in order to get a 'dirty' gun if i wanted
> of course we live in a major city...that's also a major port
> but i also exactly don't proactively keep ties to the criminal underworld



you are way less law abiding than the average citizen tho and you have way more experience with the seamy side of life


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 26, 2015)

i cannot deny any of that


----------



## Lucaniel (Aug 26, 2015)

yeah so you can't really extrapolate from your ease in finding guns as a shady dude in miami, to how easy/difficult it would be for a recently divorced mad af claims adjuster living in springfield, vermont to get his hands on a gun


----------



## Gino (Aug 26, 2015)

They never saw it coming.



!

Idiots.


----------



## Xiammes (Aug 26, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> illicit guns are so readily available that the random law-abiding square citizen who's never even smoked weed [this is a way of saying that they have zero experience with the extralegal] can get their hands on one w/o any idea of how to actually do that?



Its not hard to know a guy who knows a guy. I don't smoke weed or deal with extralegal, but if I didn't have access to the guns I already have, I am 100% confident I could get my hands on some illegal weapons just through the connections of my family, they wouldn't even question me asking because I could just say I want it for self defense.

People do find a way.

I've already said to much, don't want to get wrapped up in another firearm control debate.


----------



## Gino (Aug 26, 2015)

Said everyone from the hood ever.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 26, 2015)

How did they not see the dude holding a pistol next to their head? Anyone want to explain that? How are you THAT situationally unaware?


----------



## Romanticide (Aug 26, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> How did they not see the dude holding a pistol next to their head? Anyone want to explain that? How are you THAT situationally unaware?



Well, i'm thinking they're trained to only have the interviewee in their line of sight.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 26, 2015)

Romanticide said:


> Well, i'm thinking they're trained to only have the interviewee in their line of sight.



Even so I can look at someone and still see out of my peripheral vision. Their situationally awareness was God awful.


----------



## Romanticide (Aug 26, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Even so I can look at someone and still see out of my peripheral vision. Their situationally awareness was God awful.



He wasn't exactly in their line of sight all the way tbh.


----------



## Lucaniel (Aug 26, 2015)

Xiammes said:


> Its not hard to know a guy who knows a guy. I don't smoke weed or deal with extralegal, but if I didn't have access to the guns I already have, I am 100% confident I could get my hands on some illegal weapons just through the connections of my family, they wouldn't even question me asking because I could just say I want it for self defense.
> 
> People do find a way.
> 
> I've already said to much, don't want to get wrapped up in another firearm control debate.



"the connections of my family"?

do you mean other people in your family who legally own guns (and are thus absent in the hypothetical) or do you mean family members who are (or know) criminals?


----------



## Jagger (Aug 26, 2015)

I _really_ shouldn't have watched the vid.


----------



## Lucaniel (Aug 26, 2015)

i compromised and watched it on mute 

so not that bad


----------



## Jagger (Aug 26, 2015)

Same here, but it's still disturbing to watch him stand there, pulling out the gun and shoot multiple the reporter multiple times.


----------



## Punished Pathos (Aug 26, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> I wonder if Barry is gonna send down Loretta lynch and Biden to the funerals like he did with trayvon, mike brown, Gardner, and the charleston stuff. Something tells me probably not



Barry Soetoro will send Al Sharpton.
You're wrong about Obama, Biden and Loretta being racebaiters.
Al Sharpton is the racebaiter.
Biden and Holder are the gun grabbers.
Al Sharpton's the guy that comes in to raise the tension and maybe George Soros funds some protesters.


----------



## ~Greed~ (Aug 27, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Exactly.
> 
> But if you're say, some asshole who wants to kill his wife and wants to get a gun illegally, he could end up taking a wrong turn on the internet and end up going to a sting site. Much as the case is with a lot of the stopped terrorism cases.
> 
> ...



Holy shit, how ignorant can you be. Who the fuck goes on the internet to buy an illegal weapon....wtf .



> WAD said:
> 
> 
> > idk sunny
> ...



This. Not even through family. I've been offered guns before and I live in the suburbs. Criminals have it a hell of a lot easier, since they generally know other criminals who would sell them a gun.

Hell, this is ignoring the fact that anyone with a computer could just download the old defdist gun files from piratebay, and print themselves a gun with a used $200 3d printer that they bought off craigslist.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 27, 2015)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> RIP to the victims of the shooting.



Zero, a bigger man than Mega. I'm shocked he's not in here celebrating the death of blue eyed devils.


----------



## Mider T (Aug 27, 2015)

Somebody PM me the video


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 27, 2015)

Mider T said:


> Somebody PM me the video



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KdyNlDJMNg[/YOUTUBE]

And stop whining CTK you gotta realize I don't give a crap.


----------



## Sauce (Aug 27, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> How did they not see the dude holding a pistol next to their head? Anyone want to explain that? How are you THAT situationally unaware?





Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Even so I can look at someone and still see out of my peripheral vision. Their situationally awareness was God awful.



My theory is that they knew someone was there. But, when you do broadcast and shit like that people are always trying to get in the camera. She was focused on doing her job and blocking all outside distractions.


----------



## scerpers (Aug 27, 2015)

fucking dumbass shooter didn't even record sideways
glad he killed himself


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 27, 2015)

After sandy hook and the killing of children there, I no longer ask "what can we do?" I just accept this as a part of American life 
No reason to ask "why" or "how" when you can't change things


----------



## Lina Inverse (Aug 27, 2015)

man that video


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 27, 2015)

scerpers said:


> fucking dumbass shooter didn't even record sideways
> glad he killed himself



Upload it to /r/verticalvideos


----------



## Mathias124 (Aug 27, 2015)

If the cameraman, the owner and the interviewer all had full auto guns with which to defend themselves there would be no news !!
Arm everyone with assault riffles and / or shotguns.
That way nobody would ever get hurt


----------



## Matariki (Aug 27, 2015)

we need to bring back lynching for people like him


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 27, 2015)

Pictured Megaharrison:


----------



## Pocalypse (Aug 27, 2015)

They found a suicide note in his apartment, he was apparently being discriminated for being gay. The guy had alot of other issues though, anger problems, companies denying him a job, problems with neighbours etc


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

So Megaharrison continuously makes situations like these about black people in America..

and people still saying he's not prejudice.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> They found a suicide note in his apartment, he was apparently being discriminated for being gay. The guy had alot of other issues though, anger problems, companies denying him a job, problems with neighbours etc



A history of erratic behavior, even told to seek medical help. Honestly, would there have been any way to force him to?


----------



## Sauce (Aug 27, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> They found a suicide note in his apartment, he was apparently being discriminated for being gay. The guy had alot of other issues though, anger problems, companies denying him a job, problems with neighbours etc



Oh boo hoo.


----------



## Pocalypse (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> A history of erratic behavior, even told to seek medical help. Honestly, would there have been any way to force him to?



No the guy was already fucked up. This is someone who throws cat shit over his neighbours on a consistent basis, then kills them, there was definitely something wrong with him. Anger issues is his downfall, maybe he kept getting rejected by men.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

I find the reaction to this guys motives... disturbing. 

People who said we need look at Dylan Roof in a wider context, and culture that influence this madman to pick his targets. 

Are now completely reject the idea about looking in a wider context about this shooter, and the culture that influenced him. 
He instead of just lone madman. 


The hypocrisy is staggering.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 27, 2015)

Sauce said:


> Oh boo hoo.



Yeah it's bullshit. He had anger issues, threatened people, and was horrible at his job. I don't buy that he was discriminated against. They even gave him a coach and helped him find a new job.


----------



## Zyrax (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> I find the reaction to this guys motives... disturbing.
> 
> People who said we need look at Dylan Roof in a wider context, and culture that influence this madman to pick his targets.
> 
> ...


People like Listening to Rap and Dressing like "Gangstas" too much to admit that Its a Sub Culture that breeds violence


----------



## Black Superman (Aug 27, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> People like Listening to Rap and Dressing like "Gangstas" too much to admit that Its a Sub Culture that breeds violence



What in the hell  does rap music have to do with this particular incident of disgruntled cat owning shooterguy? You picked the absolute worse guy to draw your argument.


----------



## Zyrax (Aug 27, 2015)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> What in the hell  does rap music have to do with this particular incident of disgruntled cat shooterguy?


I am talking about the Ghetto Culture as a whole
This isn't a race thing, A lot of dumbass White people and even Asians and Hispanics think that culture is "Cool"


----------



## Black Superman (Aug 27, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> I am talking about the Ghetto Culture as a whole
> This isn't a race thing, A lot of dumbass White people and even Asians and Hispanics think that culture is "Cool"



What does ghetto culture have to do with this story right here? You can't  just bring up something unrelated out of the blue. Dylan  Roof...well, polka music? That's what you're doing right now.


----------



## Gino (Aug 27, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> I am talking about the Ghetto Culture as a whole
> This isn't a race thing, A lot of dumbass White people and even Asians and Hispanics think that culture is "Cool"



I hate ghetto culture just as much as the next man but it has no place in this thread.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> People like Listening to Rap and Dressing like "Gangstas" too much to admit that Its a Sub Culture that breeds violence



That wasn't really my point. 

More that people like to ascribe aspects of our culture that they disagree with as the cause of these types of tragedies. 
Fine with tenuous connections to things that don't like, but wholly reject it with parts of our culture they support. 

A nuanced middle lost in rhetoric exploiting tragedies to blame their opposition.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 27, 2015)

How the guy got his gun ? Legally or illegally?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> I find the reaction to this guys motives... disturbing.
> 
> People who said we need look at Dylan Roof in a wider context, and culture that influence this madman to pick his targets.
> 
> ...



What the flying fuck are you even going on about?

Dylan Roof was a white nationalist that embraced supremacist rhetoric. It's clear what cultural influence had an effect on his mind, on top of already being unstable.

Cases like these, aren't so much an issue of cultural influence.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What the flying fuck are you even going on about?
> 
> Dylan Roof was a white nationalist that embraced supremacist rhetoric. It's clear what cultural influence had an effect on his mind, on top of already being unstable.
> 
> Cases like these, aren't so much an issue of cultural influence.



Yea, people like this. You are exactly what I am talking about.


----------



## Black Superman (Aug 27, 2015)

I don't know how you feel about this but some people are calling it a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> Yea, people like this. You are exactly what I am talking about.



Make your point, dumbass. 

What cultural influence do you think drove him to his actions?

Dylan Roof embraced an ideology that believed in a concept of a "Race War" and racial supremacy of whites, as well as hopes of returning society to a previous state of racial discrimination; through violence and intimidation if necessary. He was stated to go on constantly about the blacks taking over the world, etc. It's clear what motivated his actions. 



> More that people like to ascribe aspects of our culture that they disagree with as the cause of these types of tragedies.
> Fine with tenuous connections to things that don't like, but wholly reject it with parts of our culture they support.



I mean you've got to be some kind of idiot. Dylan Roof expressed under no ambiguous terms what he was motivated by. Aspects of a culture that they disagree with? The culture he embraced directly advocated the actions he carried out. 

In contrast this is a disgruntled employee that thought his feelings of being discriminated against justified himself, as well as his numerous other issues in dealing with people, drove him to engage in homicidal and later suicidal actions.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Make your point, dumbass.
> 
> What cultural influence do you think drove him to his actions?
> 
> Dylan Roof embraced an ideology that believed in a concept of a "Race War" and racial supremacy of whites, as well as hopes of returning society to a previous state of racial discrimination; through violence and intimidation if necessary. He was stated to go on constantly about the blacks taking over the world, etc. It's clear what motivated his actions.



“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."

" “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!”"

-
These are the two Tweets: “Alison made racist comments,” and, “Adam went to hr on me after working with me one time!!!”





Seto Kaiba said:


> I mean you've got to be some kind of idiot. Dylan Roof expressed under no ambiguous terms what he was motivated by. Aspects of a culture that they disagree with? The culture he embraced directly advocated the actions he carried out.
> 
> In contrast this is a disgruntled employee that thought his feelings of being discriminated against justified himself, as well as his numerous other issues in dealing with people, drove him to engage in homicidal and later suicidal actions.


Yes, supported by a culture of victimization. Where negative criticism is the result of discrimination and racism and not personal performance. Culture that supports violent reaction against racists by those who are oppressed.

People blame Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and the confederate flag. BLM had as much to do with this guy,  as those people did with Dylan Roof


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”
> 
> “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."
> 
> ...





You are very selective. He was all over the place. 

_Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him “his boy,” and *expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers. “Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin.'"*

In Flanagan's often rambling letter to authorities, family and friends, he writes of a long list of grievances. In one part of the document, Flanagan calls it a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family."

*He says he has been attacked by black men and white females
    He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man
    He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work*

 “Yes, it will sound like I am angry," he writes in his manifesto. "I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace....”

*“The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily...I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”*

He chronicles the "tough times" he's faced, including some "financial crashes." He says he used to work as a male escort but, "I am proud of it" because he "made thousands."

*" tried to pull myself up by the bootstraps," but, "The damage was already done and when someone gets to this point, there is nothing that can be said or done to change their sadness to happiness. It does not work that way. Meds? Nah. It's too much."

"And then, after the unthinkable happened in Charleston, THAT WAS IT!!!"

"Yeah I'm all f----- up in the head," he concedes.*_

He constantly contradicts himself and is inconsistent in his aims and motives time and again. 

Not to mention the guy as already reported had a history of erratic behavior, such as throwing cat feces at his neighbor's balconies, and a difficulty cooperating and getting along with neighbors in general.



> Yes, supported by a culture of victimization. Where negative criticism is the result of discrimination and racism and not personal performance. Culture that supports violent reaction against racists by those or are oppressed.



That's not a culture of victimization, what even is that, you can't define I already know. This is really just a deranged guy that was losing his grip with reality. If this was the same motivation as Roof except inversed, no one would have issue acknowledging it. As such incidents have happened before. Yet you are rolling up in here like a retard trying to establish some selective narrative to call people out on shit you can't even get straight yourself.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You are very selective. He was all over the place.
> 
> _Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him ?his boy,? and *expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers. ?Also, I was influenced by Seung?Hui Cho. That?s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got?just sayin.'"*
> 
> ...


Sorry, I missing this giant contradiction?

Of course he was mad, just as Dylan Roof was mad, just like Elliot Rogers was mad.
He was a mad man influence by a culture, which in the past has been enough to condemn an entire culture. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> That's not a culture of victimization. This is really just a deranged guy that was losing his grip with reality.



"KILLER VIRGIN WAS A MADMAN, NOT A MISOGYNIST"


This is exactly the argument used by the right. Your lack of self awareness is staggering. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> If this was the same motivation as Roof except inversed, no one would have issue acknowledging it. As such incidents have happened before. Yet you are rolling up in here like a retard trying to establish some selective narrative to call people out on shit you can't even get straight yourself.



Wait you expecting a word for word inverse? That not how shit works. 
You have liberal side claiming that "problematic" speech/cultural are resulting in mad men directing their targets a women and minorities. 

Yet deny responsibility when mad men use their speech/culture to do the same.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> Sorry, I missing this giant contradiction?
> 
> Of course he was mad, just as Dylan Roof was mad, just like Elliot Rogers was mad.
> He was a mad man influence by a culture, which in the past has been enough to condemn an entire culture.



Jesus, you are one stupid fuck.

White supremacist culture is a real, very identifiable culture. Dylan Roof explicitly embraced figures, symbology, and motivations expressed within that culture. He was explicitly about his hatred of blacks, he would go on and on about it according to those that new him and information gained of him, and feelings of their inherent inferiority. 

In contrast, this individual went to whatever he could at the moment. He used personal feelings of unjust treatment in an attempt to justify his violence against his victims. Yet he also had a far longer history of just plain, erratic behavior. You didn't even pay attention to the article you linked. He expressed admiration of mass murders like the Columbine shooters, and the Virginia Tech shooters. He cited being bullied by black men, white women, and just people in general. He constantly went on and on about how his deteriorating state of mind, but he didn't care to rectify it. 

You are conflating a person's personal feeling of disenfranchisement as being part of some larger culture when it's not. It makes it seem like you don't know what the fuck you're even talking about.



> "KILLER VIRGIN WAS A MADMAN, NOT A MISOGYNIST"
> 
> 
> This is exactly the argument used by the right. Your lack of self awareness is staggering.



He was a misogynist, but he was also a misanthropist. He killed male victims as well as female victims. He felt women owed him something, and he hated men he thought got what he deserved more than than they. You are stupidly thinking that the two matters have to be mutually exclusive. Not to mention you are stupidly trying to argue as if it is A CULTURE. This too was not a matter of culture, but a person's individual state of mind. 



> Wait you expecting a word for word inverse? That not how shit works. You have liberal side claiming that "problematic" speech/cultural are resulting in mad men directing their targets a women and minorities.
> 
> Yet deny responsibility when mad men use their speech/culture to do the same.



Jesus...What Roof embraced SPECIFICALLY called for race wars and the use of violence and intimidation against blacks to result in such and lead to their subjugation in society again. That is completely unambiguous.

You have made no link of such in regard to this individual. He just searched, reached for, and grabbed onto anything he could just to feed his deranged state of mind. He had a hard time getting along in society, period. This is more a case of his individual state of mind than some culture. Which you haven't even gone to define yet.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Jesus, you are one stupid fuck.
> 
> White supremacist culture is a real, very identifiable culture. Dylan Roof explicitly embraced figures, symbology, and motivations expressed within that culture. He was explicitly about his hatred of blacks, he would go on and on about it according to those that new him and information gained of him, and feelings of their inherent inferiority.
> 
> ...



The Dylan Roof shooting was blamed on southern culture, it was blamed on SC having the confederate flag flying on public ground, it was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, on American "institutionalized racist" culture. Not just on a select few White supremacists. 

No, he premeditated the buying of the gun, it says so in his note. 
His personal feelings of unjust treatment reinforced by a "victimization culture"

Yes, Black men bullied him because he was gay. White women because he was Black. 
He being the victim of discrimination being the justification of his rampage. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> He was a misogynist, but he was also a misanthropist. He killed male victims as well as female victims. He felt women owed him something, and he hated men he thought got what he deserved more than than they. You are stupidly thinking that the two matters have to be mutually exclusive. Not to mention you are stupidly trying to argue as if it is A CULTURE. This too was not a matter of culture, but a person's individual state of mind.


This was identified as being about culture by the vast majority of the progressive media. The same media who now deny that this guys action could possible be influenced by anything but is on mania. 




Seto Kaiba said:


> Jesus...What Roof embraced SPECIFICALLY called for race wars and the use of violence and intimidation against blacks to result in such and lead to their subjugation in society again. That is completely unambiguous.
> 
> You have made no link of such in regard to this individual. He just searched, reached for, and grabbed onto anything he could just to feed his deranged state of mind. He had a hard time getting along in society, period. This is more a case of his individual state of mind than some culture. Which you haven't even gone to define yet.


This shooter specifically bought a gun to engage a race war. How the fuck is that ambiguous. 

Yes, that is exactly what he did! That is exactly my point! But so did Dylan Roof. So did Elliot Rogers. 
Cultures are not responsible for how mad men abuse their words. 

Southern conservatives were no more responsible for Dylan Roof, anymore than Progressive activist are responsible for Williams.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 27, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> People like Listening to Rap and Dressing like "Gangstas" too much to admit that Its a Sub Culture that breeds violence



You think this is about rap music? You realize not every black person listens to rap,  right? 

Moreover if he was discriminated on for being gay how does that fit into your whole culture that breeds violence bullshit. The gays aren't white supremacists, they don't try to wipe out the straights.


----------



## Matariki (Aug 27, 2015)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> How the guy got his gun ? Legally or illegally?



gun laws need to change

it was better when blacks were not allowed to own guns in the 1800s


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> The Dylan Roof shooting was blamed on southern culture, it was blamed on SC having the confederate flag flying on public ground, it was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, on American "institutionalized racist" culture. Not just on a select few White supremacists.



That doesn't rationalize your bullshit, sedated.

It was influence by an aspect, a very racist aspect of southern culture. An aspect of which why South Carolina, and various states including my own had the Confederate symbol in their state flag. See, you're just rambling on with your ignorance and you don't even care to rectify it. You came in here to make a point out of spite, and you can't even get your argument in line.

Roof embraced the ideologies of those that specifically called for subjugation of nonwhites, blacks in particular. He was under no ambiguous terms, influenced by that very real culture of white supremacist and nationalist movements. The Confederate symbol among others, are icons that are specifically part that culture he embraced. 



> No, he premeditated the buy on of the gun, it says so in his note.
> His personal feelings of unjust treatment reinforced by a "victimization culture"



You are just using "culture" as a buzzword. It becomes absolutely meaningless. 

Also, read. He used his personal feelings of being victimized in an attempt to justify his actions and state of mind. Once again, he had a far longer history of just plain, erratic behavior. Even was told to seek medical help for it. He did not. 



> Yes, Black men bullied him because he was gay. White women because he was Black.
> He being the victim of discrimination being the justification of his rampage.



*Which is not a culture.*



> This was identified as being about culture by the vast majority of the progressive media. The same media who now deny that this guys action could possible be influenced by anything but is on mania.



So the fuck what? What does that have to do with his actual motives? 

You just seem to be griping about what one side of the media does rather than making any actual point. It's why you can't even get your argument together. You came in here with an argument purely made in spite. 



> This shooter specifically bought a gun to engage a race war. How the fuck is that ambiguous.



He contradicts himself more than once. He says it was "just the tipping point", that he was always going to go off. Then he also says the reason he did so is due to feelings of being discriminated by those two individuals in particular during the time he worked there.

Like I said you aren't even getting your shit straight on this. He was an erratic individual, and his attempts at explaining his state of mind and his motivations only indicate that. 



> Yes, that is exactly what he did! That is exactly my point! But so did Dylan Roof. So did Elliot Rogers.
> Cultures are not responsible for how mad men abuse their words.



The culture of Dylan Roof explicitly called for the actions he carried out. He embraced that culture wholesale, like I said, it's a very real culture that exists. It has symbols, figures, and methodology. Books, music, and teachings are centered around it. Dylan Roof immersed himself in that. You are comparing apples and oranges here.



> Southern conservatives were no more responsible for Dylan Roof, than Progressive activist are responsible for Williams.



Learn something from a southerner. 

_*There IS a white supremacist culture in the south.*_ That is what Dylan Roof was influenced by. That is a distinct concept of of southern culture in general. That is a distinct matter of southern conservatives; because while southern conservatism has historically had a long history with white supremacy, they are not one in the same. At least not in this modern day. Rush Limbaugh is a racist, and a bigot but he as far as I know is not explicitly a white supremacist or nationalist. However, Dylan Roof embraced the ideology of groups and individuals that DID, that actually are apart of white nationalist/supremacist culture.


----------



## Garcher (Aug 27, 2015)

greatest country in the world


----------



## baconbits (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You keep listing sources that have every reason to present skewed data.



Every source is going to have an axe to grind.  That's what makes them study this issue intently.  What matters is not their POV but whether their findings are credible.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Are you even paying attention to your sources, and what they are sourcing? It's an entirely circular matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your sources do still lean to the left.  And yes, there's good reason to suspect those numbers are overestimated, but that does not negate the other points I've raised: people use guns for legitimate self defense, guns prevent crime, cities that have established gun bans are less safe and have higher murder rates.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Uh, there's plenty reason. Because that plays into the overall issue we have with guns. Too many people are not properly educated on proper and safe usage or storage of firearms despite legally owning them. There's also in regard to suicide, factoring in prospective owner's state of mind. Because a suicidal thought can turn homicidal. Especially those that don't want to die alone.



Your argument doesn't follow.  First, you brought up gun safety and suicides.  Being properly educated on the use of firearms will not prevent a suicidal person from using a gun to kill themselves.  That point is ridiculous.

Second, suicide is more directly related to someone's mental state than their gun ownership.  True, people use firearms to kill themselves in the US.  But suicide rates in the US are about the middle of the pack when it comes to developed states, and our gun ownership rate is towards the top.  If gun ownership were related to suicides you'd expect our suicide rate to be higher.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It's not a stupid point because again, we do not use guns as part of our daily lives the way we use automobiles. You are intentionally trying to dodge the clear implications here because it completely undermines the point you were trying to make to begin with.



It doesn't undermine anything because its a stupid point.  I don't even know how you can defend it.  "People who have guns are more likely to have gun accidents".  No way! How shocking!

Did you know people who use chain saws are more likely to get hurt by them?  Its valid because people don't use chainsaws as part of their daily lives.

Women who have sex are more likely to be pregnant.  That's shocking statistical analysis as well.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Your argument would win how?



Because if gun control has no effect on gun violence there's no need to make the change.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Because there's more a case for gun control working to reduce violence and homicide by firearm than not. Domestically and internationally, people like you just cherrypick places like Chicago to make a point. Ignoring that despite Chicago having strict gun laws, they are also poorly enforced.



I think this is where you're just butt hurt.  Why not just grant me the point that in urban areas this doesn't work?  In D.C this also doesn't work.  Its just a fact.  There's no reason to struggle against reality.

Internationally, especially when you consider Israel and Switzerland, there's more argument for guns to be available than not be available to the legal citizen.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Especially in more dilapidated areas, the infrastructure in general is poor, and law enforcement is overextended. The proper resources are not in place. Yet you take a look at cities in Canada that are separated by a mere lake or river from their U.S. counterparts and their incident of firerarm related homicides and violence are significantly lower.



They have entirely different rates of crime in Canada.  Its hard to compare them to the US, especially when they don't share a border with the Mexican drug cartels and have less racial minorities than we have.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Stubbornness doesn't lend validity to your argument, the claim you've just made has no basis.



Of course it does.  I just mentioned Chicago and D.C.  I could mention England, Jamaica or any number of places:









> 6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
> 
> False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States. A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.



That's such a stupid argument, the only people who pay attention to laws period are those that can function under such standards and abide by those laws. That doesn't mean we do away with them because there exist those that don't. [/QUOTE]





> Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the citys homicide rate was at a 56-year low.
> 
> It isnt any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals dont know whos armed and who isnt has a deterrence effect, said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. The police department hasnt changed a single tactic  they havent announced a shift in policy or of course  and yet you have these incredible numbers.
> 
> As of July 29 the state had 83,183 applications for concealed carry and had issued 68,549 licenses.







Seto Kaiba said:


> None of that happens overnight, and it is not realistic to reduce it to zero. Yet reducing it significantly is a realistic goal.



Its an honorable goal but my guess is that departments across the nation are already trying to do this.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You keep trying to strawman may points instead of actually addressing them.



Not at all.  I never put words into your mouth.  You're just ridiculously naive.  If you really think that police just need to try harder to get guns off the street you're naive.  Police are already trying to do this.  Police have gun, gang and drug units.  They help but ultimately criminals are going to have illegal things.

But in a larger sense you're more right than you even recognize.  The key to solving gun violence is policing because the legal gun owners don't really have much to do with the gun violence plaguing our inner cities.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The resources to address these issues vary from place to place, and in areas like Chicago most notably, those resources are limited.



That's a dumb argument.  We're not comparing a rich place to a poor place.  We're comparing Chicago before the gun ban with Chicago after the gun ban.  They didn't all of a sudden become poor just because the facts go against your argument.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You keep thinking you're making a clever point, but you just show how you can't address what I'm saying with presenting those ridiculous absolutes. Also, FYI, circulation of those drugs have been significantly reduced in the past 30 years or so.



Its been reduced, yet I can easily get any of these drugs with no trouble whatsoever.  My point is not that policing can't help but rather that first, its already being attempted and second, even after its successful there will still be illegal guns on the street, and third, none of this has anything to do with legal gun owners.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Which is absolutely redundant to state here, because people like you keep going on these strawmen of idiotic absolutes when people try to discuss regulation of guns and addressing circulation of firearms on the streets.



How is that redundant?  Its like you're throwing out words without realizing what they mean.



Seto Kaiba said:


> They mine the data, to a severe degree. Yet even in their attempt to do so, the charts they provide ultimately undermine the point they are making.



The charts justify their points.  Why would they make graphics to do anything but?  Its odd.  You charge me with having biases sources but then claim my biased sources are putting out data that goes against their own conclusions.  Pick an argument: either my sources are biased and only put out data that supports their conclusions or they're objective, putting out info that contradicts them while they make the opposite conclusion.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Incorrect. There are objective sources on the matter, and I've made effort to find as close to those as I can find. You are just trying to justify presenting a biased narrative regardless of the facts.



Not at all.  And your claim doesn't make my sources invalid.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Claim already addressed in initial response.



Not particularly well, tho.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I did read the article, that's how I noticed the data-mining. That's how I additionally noticed a number of claims made in it are ones that are commonly debunked; and not by liberal sources at that.



...Your sources are pretty liberal.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Unless that criminal is armed.



Then you've evened the odds.  You can't make the argument that you're better off unarmed if approached by a criminal and retain your credibility.  Be realistic.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What the flying fuck are you even going on about?
> 
> Dylan Roof was a white nationalist that embraced supremacist rhetoric. It's clear what cultural influence had an effect on his mind, on top of already being unstable.
> 
> Cases like these, aren't so much an issue of cultural influence.



You're wrong.  This guy was as SJW as you can go.  He always filed complaints, refused to take criticism and blamed everything in his life that went wrong on his race or sexuality.  If anything he's a product of the grievance culture.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with rap.  Unless he was listening to Young Thug.


----------



## Casanova (Aug 27, 2015)

GARcher said:


> greatest country in the world



You damn right. 

Now what other country in the world need some DEMOCRACY?


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 27, 2015)

Should we ban the gay flag in the aftermath of the shooting?

Also does anyone else notice the shooter looks like a fatter version of Bioness?


----------



## Savior (Aug 27, 2015)

GARcher said:


> greatest country in the world



Subpar Healthcare
Mass shootings
Rampant racism

Yeah maybe not.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

baconbits said:


> Every source is going to have an axe to grind.  That's what makes them study this issue intently.  What matters is not their POV but whether their findings are credible.



You are making preemptive assumptions about other sources to justify your own biases. No source I'll cite will be credible to you because you've already decided it's not what you want to hear. However, like I said I am trying to avoid those with some blatant agenda in mind. 



> Your sources do still lean to the left.  And yes, there's good reason to suspect those numbers are overestimated, but that does not negate the other points I've raised: people use guns for legitimate self defense, guns prevent crime, cities that have established gun bans are less safe and have higher murder rates.



The numbers are overstated, at best estimates are said to be in the hundreds of thousands, not millions or anywhere in that ballpark. I know people use guns for self-defense, you aren't making a relevant point in bringing it up. Because nowhere did I deny that people use guns for their own personal and lawful use. 

Also you are once again being selective. Select cities that have them are less safe, yet more cities with lax laws and greater ownership also see more crime involving firearms. You are completely ignoring as well the entire countries, like our own neighbor up north which has stricter gun laws and significantly lower incidents of gun-related and homicide per capita. 



> Your argument doesn't follow.  First, you brought up gun safety and suicides.  Being properly educated on the use of firearms will not prevent a suicidal person from using a gun to kill themselves.  That point is ridiculous.



I'm bringing up two aspects which most often occur in the home in relation to firearms. Accidents, and suicides. Being properly trained in firearms can reduce accidents, not enough training is given on that. Many times a person gets cleared to buy a gun and while they may clear, that does not address personal ignorance on handling them.

Suicide as I stated again, is about a more rigorous method of determining state of mind of individuals; sometimes suicidal thoughts can again, become homicidal. 



> Second, suicide is more directly related to someone's mental state than their gun ownership.



You're not paying attention, bacon. I just stated that it is, but assessing that state of mind should always play a factor in the gun trade. 



> True, people use firearms to kill themselves in the US.  But suicide rates in the US are about the middle of the pack when it comes to developed states, and our gun ownership rate is towards the top.  If gun ownership were related to suicides you'd expect our suicide rate to be higher.



This is not addressing the point I raised in relation to it...



> It doesn't undermine anything because its a stupid point.  I don't even know how you can defend it.  "People who have guns are more likely to have gun accidents".  No way! How shocking!



You also dodged how the article laid out that a higher concentration of guns in an area also had a higher concentration of gun-related violence. You are just sidestepping points that are inconvenient to how you want to see this matter.



> Did you know people who use chain saws are more likely to get hurt by them?  Its valid because people don't use chainsaws as part of their daily lives.



A lumberjack or one who works with lumber would use such equipment more frequently and be subject to such accidents. It's a stupid comparison, not to mention a gun is explicitly made with the intention of inflicting harm and killing individuals. A person owning a gun shouldn't blind themselves to that fact, I certainly don't. 



> Women who have sex are more likely to be pregnant.  That's shocking statistical analysis as well.



Well that's definitely a stupid comparison. Modern medicine, bacon.



> Because if gun control has no effect on gun violence there's no need to make the change.



But we can look at examples to see that it does. There are more examples than not. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that. 



> I think this is where you're just butt hurt.  Why not just grant me the point that in urban areas this doesn't work?  In D.C this also doesn't work.  Its just a fact.  There's no reason to struggle against reality.



The irony in this statement. How about again, the Northeast as well as Canada? A society very similar to our own. You are being dishonest, as I stated, it's about a lack of resources in these areas. Because these areas are plagued by many additional factors that include a high rate of gun violence that lead to their present situations. It has little to do if anything with the fact that they have stricter gun laws. It's just a stupid argument. 



> Internationally, especially when you consider Israel and Switzerland, there's more argument for guns to be available than not be available to the legal citizen.



How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about banning guns? I'm talking about enforcing our actual laws in regard to them, and reviewing the effectiveness of existing laws and the resources we distribute to make enforcement possible. Places like Israel, Switzerland, and Norway actually enforce their gun laws. These places have more stringent rules in place that despite your attempt to use them to justify we we shouldn't do anything, only establishes that we should be doing something. 



> They have entirely different rates of crime in Canada.  Its hard to compare them to the US, especially when they don't share a border with the Mexican drug cartels and have less racial minorities than we have.



No kidding, that's kind of my point. Once again, you ignore that you have cities in the U.S. and Canada separated merely by rivers and lakes yet there is a world of difference between firearm related incidents between them. Your excuses are insufficient to explain this difference. 



> Of course it does.  I just mentioned Chicago and D.C.  I could mention England, Jamaica or any number of places:



My livescience article already addressed this claim. John Lott has considerably compromised credibility on this matter because he has a reputation of misrepresenting data. 



I don't get people like you that always try to throw England under the bus. There is also Australia which actually did ban guns and did not see a rise either. 

You are just going to sources with blatant biases here. This is ridiculous. 

What's more is you are comparing a place like Jamaica, a pretty poor country as an example when you ignorantly try and deny just about every other nation with gun control laws that see considerably fewer incidents related to firearms. Once again, you are being dishonest. 



> That's such a stupid argument, the only people who pay attention to laws period are those that can function under such standards and abide by those laws. That doesn't mean we do away with them because there exist those that don't.



Once, again extreme selectivity. Look at the incident of gun-related homicides and violence in the United States, the highest rate of them occur in places which do have more lax gun laws than not. Primarily states of the South most notably. 



> Its an honorable goal but my guess is that departments across the nation are already trying to do this.



Yes, as well as try to prevent and solve crimes in general. I suppose they should just give up on that since there are people that will commit crimes anyway, right?



> Not at all.  I never put words into your mouth.  You're just ridiculously naive.  If you really think that police just need to try harder to get guns off the street you're naive.  Police are already trying to do this.  Police have gun, gang and drug units.  They help but ultimately criminals are going to have illegal things.



It's not about trying harder.

This is just what I mean, when you can't address a point you go on this dishonest route. It's about allocating greater resources to them so that they are more able to do their jobs. It's about acknowledging that many PDs across the country simply do not have the proper means to address the issues in their neck of the woods. A place like Chicago has an overextended police force, and a dwindling one. Not to mention a public infrastructure in general that once again needs addressing. The same for Detroit, and many of the dilapidated areas of the United States that suffer the most from firearm-related crimes. 



> But in a larger sense you're more right than you even recognize.  The key to solving gun violence is policing because the legal gun owners don't really have much to do with the gun violence plaguing our inner cities.



Yet you say to do nothing. 



> That's a dumb argument.  We're not comparing a rich place to a poor place.  We're comparing Chicago before the gun ban with Chicago after the gun ban.  They didn't all of a sudden become poor just because the facts go against your argument.



No it isn't. You are moronically trying to argue as if the rate of crime in Chicago is tied to its gun control laws. It's not. The issues of crime are related to a far more expansive matter that you have clearly shown zero awareness of. 



> Its been reduced, yet I can easily get any of these drugs with no trouble whatsoever.  My point is not that policing can't help but rather that first, its already being attempted and second, even after its successful there will still be illegal guns on the street, and third, none of this has anything to do with legal gun owners.



Now that is a dumb argument. It has been reduced, it is not as large as an epidemic was as in the 80s or 90s. You are ridiculously trying to argue that since it was not reduced to zero the effort was not worth it at all. It's completely absurd. 

You keep making these redundant statements. Time and again I tell you it's about reduction and prevention. Total eradication is not a realistic goal in mind. 



> How is that redundant?  Its like you're throwing out words without realizing what they mean.



Refer to previous response. 



> The charts justify their points.  Why would they make graphics to do anything but?  Its odd.  You charge me with having biases sources but then claim my biased sources are putting out data that goes against their own conclusions.  Pick an argument: either my sources are biased and only put out data that supports their conclusions or they're objective, putting out info that contradicts them while they make the opposite conclusion.



 It's odd because they are data-mining. They don't have an interest in displaying an honest narrative, just one that they personally favor. That's why bacon. You've completely sidestepped the sources that have addressed these claims, and displayed their inaccuracies. You keep referring to sources with a blatant political bias and blatant desire to present a particular narrative. It completely comprises your entire argument because you're basing it around flawed sources. 



> Not at all.  And your claim doesn't make my sources invalid.



I've cited numerous sources that show the blatant falsehoods or misleading statements of your own. You are specifically referring to sources that have every reason to present a biased narrative. Don't try to act naive to this. If I cited banallgunsforever.com you'd be screaming bloody murder. For good reason, because sources like that all the same present a skewed narrative that doesn't help anybody. 



> Not particularly well, tho.
> 
> 
> 
> ...Your sources are pretty liberal.



Now, this is where we get to where you start bullshitting.

You consider everything that is not dead in center with your ideology as liberal. Those sources are not liberal, they are as purely factual as they come. I avoided actual liberal sources for this reason. 



> Then you've evened the odds.  You can't make the argument that you're better off unarmed if approached by a criminal and retain your credibility.  Be realistic.



You really haven't. An armed person dealing with armed criminals is actually more likely to suffer injury or death. It's common sense, bacon. Criminals are not going to be the most rational people, you present yourself as a real threat with the presence of a weapon and it is even worse if they get the drop on you. This is not some movie, and we are not all Dirty Harry.


----------



## comradeclaus (Aug 27, 2015)

you do know most public White Rights figures CONDEMNED Roots actions? what sane person equates whites opposing hundreds of thousands of hate crimes against the people they love with "gotta kill all the darkies!"? Maybe you should read the posts about Root on Stormfront & tally the "for vs against"

what part of stopping black on white rapes & murders justifies shooting middle aged blacks inside a church?

if he'd shot a black gang member selling drugs on the street he'd at leadt have a claim he was doing the right thing

if this black man gunned down someone holding the confederate flag (plenty of such targets for him there), the media'd applaud him, both root & this guy are crazy stupid fucks, but the black guy actually did more damage, 2 young whites who hadn't even had children yet, vs 9 blacks who were parents & grandparents already (like bombing a icbm silo after it already launched it's nuke)

plus the Rhodesia issue was quickly buried, can't let people know about the genocide there or the murder of over 120000 whites in mandela's Rainbow Utopia

nope, no race war here! all 37000 white women who say they were raped by black men each year are racist liars, you know? while only 10 black girls a year can overcome white intimidation to report white on black rapes

the knockouts, mugging looting & security footage lies too! the murder scene evidence is tampered, while black cops are uncle toms for oppressing young black men who need jobs

what? the democrats let in millions of latinos a year & they take all the jobs inner city blacks used to get?, but the liberals are AntiRacist, so they a'ight!


----------



## Agmaster (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> Yea, people like this. You are exactly what I am talking about.



Remember when we thought he was white?


----------



## Eki (Aug 27, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> I am talking about the Ghetto Culture as a whole
> This isn't a race thing, A lot of dumbass White people and even Asians and Hispanics think that culture is "Cool"



I grew up in that shit. A lot of people who also grew up in it are some of the most realest and down to earth people youll _ever_ meet.


----------



## Agmaster (Aug 27, 2015)

I looked forward to actual discussion on the matter....  Naive of me, as soon as color was shown everyone just ... triggered.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That doesn't rationalize your bullshit, sedated.
> 
> It was influence by an aspect, a very racist aspect of southern culture. An aspect of which why South Carolina, and various states including my own had the Confederate symbol in their state flag. See, you're just rambling on with your ignorance and you don't even care to rectify it. You came in here to make a point out of spite, and you can't even get your argument in line.
> 
> Roof embraced the ideologies of those that specifically called for subjugation of nonwhites, blacks in particular. He was under no ambiguous terms, influenced by that very real culture of white supremacist and nationalist movements. The Confederate symbol among others, are icons that are specifically part that culture he embraced.


White supremacists exist in southern culture, but that doesn't mean that southern culture is responsible for white supremacists. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> You are just using "culture" as a buzzword. It becomes absolutely meaningless.
> 
> Also, read. He used his personal feelings of being victimized in an attempt to justify his actions and state of mind. Once again, he had a far longer history of just plain, erratic behavior. Even was told to seek medical help for it. He did not.


I am using culture as it has been used in the passed in such situations. 

His personal feelings of victimization influence by the victimization culture that he was a part of. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> *Which is not a culture.*


This nonsensical response brought to you by "out of context"



Seto Kaiba said:


> So the fuck what? What does that have to do with his actual motives?
> 
> You just seem to be griping about what one side of the media does rather than making any actual point. It's why you can't even get your argument together. You came in here with an argument purely made in spite.


Are you reading? I am talking about the hypocrisy of the progressive left. Their media is their most easily reference point for their opinions. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> He contradicts himself more than once. He says it was "just the tipping point", that he was always going to go off. Then he also says the reason he did so is due to feelings of being discriminated by those two individuals in particular during the time he worked there.
> 
> Like I said you aren't even getting your shit straight on this. He was an erratic individual, and his attempts at explaining his state of mind and his motivations only indicate that.


These are not contradictions. He believes he is the victim of discrimination(racism and homophobia) and his "tipping point" was based off of a racist killing he felt personally connected to. 




Seto Kaiba said:


> The culture of Dylan Roof explicitly called for the actions he carried out. He embraced that culture wholesale, like I said, it's a very real culture that exists. It has symbols, figures, and methodology. Books, music, and teachings are centered around it. Dylan Roof immersed himself in that. You are comparing apples and oranges here.


southern culture didn't explicitly call for his actions. 
SC having the confederate flag flying on public ground doesn't explicitly call for his actions. 
Rush Limbaugh didn't explicitly call for his actions
American culture didn't explicitly call for his actions. 

You keep switching influences in fallacy of ambiguity. 




Seto Kaiba said:


> Learn something from a southerner.
> 
> _*There IS a white supremacist culture in the south.*_ That is what Dylan Roof was influenced by. That is a distinct concept of of southern culture in general. That is a distinct matter of southern conservatives; because while southern conservatism has historically had a long history with white supremacy, they are not one in the same. At least not in this modern day. Rush Limbaugh is a racist, and a bigot but he as far as I know is not explicitly a white supremacist or nationalist. However, Dylan Roof embraced the ideology of groups and individuals that DID, that actually are apart of white nationalist/supremacist culture.



"The Dylan Roof shooting was blamed on southern culture, it was blamed on SC having the confederate flag flying on public ground, it was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, on American "institutionalized racist" culture. Not just on a select few White supremacists."


"The overt white supremacist websites that taught Dylann Roof his racist beliefs, and the more “polite” and “respectable” right-wing media outlets such as Fox News, are part of the same political communication ecosystem. Both Dylann Roof and Donald Trump are channeling the racist political values and talking points that are generated on a daily basis by Fox News and the right-wing propaganda machine. "



"Dylann Roof grew up in a society that subtly upholds racist ideals, breeds toxic masculinity, and continues to debate whether guns kill people, or people kill people. Collectively, we created that society, and we're simultaneously obsessed with and terrified of addressing racism in a real way."


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 27, 2015)

*America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and 15 times as many as Germany*


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 27, 2015)

Oh, nice stats.

What's the second highest population in that chart compared to us, again?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 27, 2015)

WAD said:


> Oh, nice stats.
> 
> What's the second highest population in that chart compared to us, again?



It's Germany but it doesn't matter since it's *homicide by firearm per 1 million people* 


Edit: if you are Canadian, well I guess it's Austria.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> White supremacists exist in southern culture, but that doesn't mean that southern culture is responsible for white supremacists.



No shit, Sherlock. White supremacy existed before a concept of Southern culture, but the cultural conditions of the South throughout its history did foster a society that was inviting to such an ideology. You keep stupidly confusing things here. 



> I am using culture as it has been used in the passed in such situations.



You are using it in a very idiotic fashion. 



> His personal feelings of victimization influence by the victimization culture that he was a part of.



He wasn't part of a culture, those were matters of his own personal feelings of disenfranchisement. 



> This nonsensical response brought you to by "out of context"



Personal feelings of an individual is not a culture. 



> Are you reading? I am talking about the hypocrisy of the progressive left. Their media is their most easily reference point for their opinions.



You don't even know how to go about making that point. 



> These are not contradictions. He believes he is the victim of discrimination(racism and homophobia) and his "tipping point" was based off of a racist killing he felt personally connected to.



Yet again. He also stated it was his personal matters of feeling discriminated against by those two employees in particular. You are ignoring what he left as he was about to commit the crime, as he referenced them specifically and how he felt they wronged him. You are also ignoring that long before he had admired individuals that carried out similar acts. 



> southern culture didn't explicitly call for his actions.
> SC having the confederate flag flying on public ground doesn't explicitly call for his actions.
> Rush Limbaugh didn't explicitly call for his actions
> American culture didn't explicitly call for his actions.
> ...



Jesus you are a fucking idiot.

I just told you that matters of white supremacist culture is distinct from southern culture in general.

I just told you that the Confederate symbol is an icon of that culture, and the history behind why SC has that symbol in its flag in the first place is in relation to white supremacist culture. You don't seem to know that.

Also I didn't say Limbaugh called for those actions. I stated the direct opposite.

Nor did I see American culture did you complete bellend.

What I DID say is that the actual white supremacist and nationalist culture he embraced specifically calls for acts of violence and intimidation in blacks as a means to subjugate them in society. 



> "The Dylan Roof shooting was blamed on southern culture, it was blamed on SC having the confederate flag flying on public ground, it was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, on American "institutionalized racist" culture. Not just on a select few White supremacists."
> 
> 
> "The overt white supremacist websites that taught Dylann Roof his racist beliefs, and the more “polite” and “respectable” right-wing media outlets such as Fox News, are part of the same political communication ecosystem. Both Dylann Roof and Donald Trump are channeling the racist political values and talking points that are generated on a daily basis by Fox News and the right-wing propaganda machine. "
> ...



OK? What relevance do these have at all? It just means these sources painted too broad a brush. How the hell does that relate to you rolling up in here like a complete ignoramus? 

I'm telling you what is actually known about the kid, and what the specific culture he embraced is and what it actually entails.

Seriously, like I said it just seems like your entire argument comes from a spiteful standpoint; you don't even know what point you wanna make.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

WAD said:


> Oh, nice stats.
> 
> What's the second highest population in that chart compared to us, again?



That chart rate per capita, WAD. So that argument doesn't fly.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 27, 2015)

*America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world*


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 27, 2015)

missed that

mobile viewing OP


----------



## comradeclaus (Aug 27, 2015)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> *America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world*



but how many murders? firearm AND nonfirearm combined?

plus america has a very large nonwhite population inflamed by decades of marxist lies

jessica chambers wasn't killed by a gun (burned alive), nor was nicole brown simpson (dismembered by knife)

the rwanda/burundi dead were predominantly killed by machetes & such implements

plus, for all the guns we have, shouldn't it be impressive that so FEW are killed?

btw, gun control didn't keep a moroccan arab bumfuck from getting on a train w/ an AK, let alone the Chalie Hebdo Butchers

or keep breivik from getting the highest nonmarxist executioner highscore

you can't get the race crime stats for canada or germany

whites only crime rates are comparable


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 27, 2015)

makeoutparadise said:


> After sandy hook and the killing of children there, I no longer ask "what can we do?" I just accept this as a part of American life
> No reason to ask "why" or "how" when you can't change things



Put armed guards at schools problem solved.




HE CLEARLY REPRESENTS A ENTIRE RACE/SEXUALITY BAN THIS FLAG NOW!


----------



## Pliskin (Aug 27, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Put armed guards at schools problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Remind me again, which state has that flag on the capitol all year long?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

JSJ is just being a retard.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 27, 2015)

*States with more guns have more gun deaths*







*It's not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun homicides*


----------



## Punished Pathos (Aug 27, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]0nM0asnCXD0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Gino (Aug 27, 2015)

Eki said:


> I grew up in that shit. A lot of people who also grew up in it are some of the most realest and down to earth people you'll _ever_ meet.



Once upon a time now not so much.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 27, 2015)

Agmaster said:


> I looked forward to actual discussion on the matter....  Naive of me, as soon as color was shown everyone just ... triggered.



Exactly. as if they guy isn't insane .


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Put armed guards at schools problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh my god.....did you seriously...


----------



## αce (Aug 27, 2015)

>people comparing this to south carolina shooter


jump off the empire state


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Aug 27, 2015)

JSJ needs to be banned again.


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

The mere fact he posted that explains a lot. I want to know exactly where he got it from...from whatever idiotic website he frequents or is subscribed to.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 27, 2015)

Bannai said:


> These numbers show the root of the problem



The good news

>no black people are victims of blacks violence
>no white people are not victims of white violence 
>Latinos, Asians and other violence doesn't exist.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No shit, Sherlock. White supremacy existed before a concept of Southern culture, but the cultural conditions of the South throughout its history did foster a society that was inviting to such an ideology. You keep stupidly confusing things here.


This is a bit more focus on my complaint then I think any other point. 
If you asked southerns if they support white supremacists group do you believe that they would say, yes?

If you believe they would say, no. Then can you understand the objection that they would have to be considered to be "inviting" that ideology.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You are using it in a very idiotic fashion.
> 
> He wasn't part of a culture, those were matters of his own personal feelings of disenfranchisement.
> 
> ...


So you do not believe that progressives have created a victim culture in this country. This to me is either a lack of social awareness or simple a rejection of unpleasant reality.  




Seto Kaiba said:


> Yet again. He also stated it was his personal matters of feeling discriminated against by those two employees in particular. You are ignoring what he left as he was about to commit the crime, as he referenced them specifically and how he felt they wronged him. You are also ignoring that long before he had admired individuals that carried out similar acts.


I am not ignoring them. I believe I have mentioned them. 
I am saying that his personal feelings of discrimination were the result of a being a part of a culture of victimization. 
Just as racist can have personal feelings against individual black people. 

Once again, it is the double standard I am pointing out. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Jesus you are a fucking idiot.
> 
> I just told you that matters of white supremacist culture is distinct from southern culture in general.
> 
> ...



I point to sources pointing out directly what I am talking about, making direct references to the "wider context, and culture that influence" that I referenced in post that you objected to. 

You then accept that the sources are wrong, you accept my position, YOU ACCEPT MY FUCKING ARGUMENT AS CORRECT!

.... and then move on. As though validating my position means nothing.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Pliskin said:


> Remind me again, which state has that flag on the capitol all year long?



It doesn't matter where it hangs, its only fair that we remove and ban it for the grieving victims. WE CAN'T OFFEND PEOPLE WITH THESE FLAGS! YOUR FREEDOMS END WHERE MY FEELINGS BEGIN!



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> JSJ needs to be banned again.



Here comes the shill ready to spew his propaganda...



Flow said:


> The mere fact he posted that explains a lot. I want to know exactly where he got it from...from whatever idiotic website he frequents or is subscribed to.



I got it from a guy on Instagram if thats the place you mean?


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

The confederate flag wasn't 'banned' anywhere, it was taken off the state capital..

Good lord, do you not see how ridiculous you look right now?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 27, 2015)

not as ridiculous as people who bite the bait of a known troll


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 27, 2015)

Flow said:


> The confederate flag wasn't 'banned' anywhere, it was taken off the state capital..
> 
> Good lord, do you not see how ridiculous you look right now?



The gay flag was lit up on the White House. Should Barry apologize for that and swear to never do it again?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Flow said:


> The confederate flag wasn't 'banned' anywhere, it was taken off the state capital..
> 
> Good lord, do you not see how ridiculous you look right now?



His lone actions represent a whole spectrum of the black and LGBT community. We need to hold them all responsible.

Also I like how you tried to link my picture with infowars.


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

WAD said:


> not as ridiculous as people who bite the bait of a known troll



Right, because Jersey Shore Jesus is totally a known troll around these parts. And not some crazed conspiracist that watches youtube videos detailing 9/11 was an inside job. That's news to me. 



Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> His lone actions represent a whole spectrum of the black and LGBT community. We need to hold them all responsible.
> 
> Also I like how you tried to link my picture with infowars.



Why aren't you addressing my original comment?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> This is a bit more focus on my complaint then I think any other point. If you asked southerns if they support white supremacists group do you believe that they would say, yes?



No, most won't. Yet you came in here with an idiotic bone to pick in the first place. You made a number of assumptions on the positions of people you attempted to call out, which only showed you had jack shit of an idea of what point you wanted to make to begin with. 



> If you believe they would say, no. Then can you understand the objection that they would have to be considered to be "inviting" that ideology.



Try to read carefully here. Historically, the south has had an inviting atmosphere to white supremacy, it was a mentality that dominated this region for most of its history. This is simple fact. However, that has largely subsided. What is also simple fact is that it was not southern culture in general that drove the Roof to commit the murders he did, but it was a culture that has existed within the south of white supremacy and nationalism. 



> So you do not believe that progressives have created a victim culture in this country. This to me is either a lack of social awareness or simple a rejection of unpleasant reality.



God, you are a fucking moron.

This incident is not a matter of victim culture. That's it. You are coming in here with your moronic political gripes, you can't even get any situation that you cite straight on any front. An individual's gripes does not make a culture. Elliot Rodgers, and this individual are not part of some victim culture. They all stem from very different backgrounds and used their own individual perceptions of injustice against themselves or what they felt was ideal as a means to carry out their acts of violence.  

Dylan Roof was motivated by a culture explicitly about the matters he ranted on about. White supremacy and nationalism. 



> I am not ignoring them. I believe I have mentioned them.
> I am saying that his personal feelings of discrimination were the result of a being a part of a culture of victimization.
> Just as racist can have personal feelings against individual black people.



Ugh...His personal feelings of discrimination is not a part of a larger culture, that is where you are entirely wrong.

You are being willfully obtuse to ignore Dylan Roof's blatant embracing of an actual culture that explicitly advocates and encourages the actions he carried out based on the motives he claimed to carry them out under. 



> Once again, it is the double standard I am pointing out.



You don't even know what double standard you are even pointing out to begin with. You just came out here with a bone to pick against some progressive bogeyman, and came at people in this thread specifically with this ignorance as if they wrote the articles you cited. 



> I point to sources pointing out directly what I am talking about, making direct references to the "wider context, and culture that influence" that I referenced in post that you objected to.



You came in here trying to call people like myself out, jackass. Then you brought up sources completely irrelevant to that matter as if people here authored those articles.

You don't even know the first thing you want to harp on about yet here you are.



> You then accept that the sources are wrong, you accept my position, YOU ACCEPT MY FUCKING ARGUMENT AS CORRECT!



Once again. You cited articles that have *no relevance* to the people here you were trying to call out.

Not to mention that their bullshit does not again, make yours valid. You keep moronically talking about this victim culture that you haven't even really established. You can't even get the story straight on any of the individuals you cited.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Flow said:


> Why aren't you addressing my original comment?



Stores literally took it off shelves for the sole purpose to stop the sale of them. Hell they even stopped broadcasting reruns of *The Dukes of Hazzard* because "The General Lee" had the flag painted on it! It was all but "officially" banned.

I mean goodness they took it off Amazon and many other flag websites.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 27, 2015)

He's obviously aligned on the right, but it's pretty obvious he exaggerates his stances for inflammatory effect.


----------



## Jagger (Aug 27, 2015)

It's the same case of Mega and Seto.

I'm surprised the latter even bothers to reply at this point.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 27, 2015)

WAD said:


> He's obviously aligned on the right, but it's pretty obvious he exaggerates his stances for inflammatory effect.



Negative but call it what you want bro.


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Stores literally took it off shelves for the sole purpose to stop the sale of them. Hell they even stopped broadcasting reruns of *The Dukes of Hazzard* because "The General Lee" had the flag painted on it! It was all but "officially" banned.



That's not 'banning' it. It's companies/agencies wanting nothing more to do with it. 

The fact that you even tried to compare the Confederate Flag to the Gay Flag is fucking stupid within itself. Why are you even trying to deny this?



> He's obviously aligned on the right, but it's pretty obvious he exaggerates his stances for inflammatory effect.



Oh, thank you much for pointing this out.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Also anyone talking about "gun control" over this shooting, you're a moron.

Colin Noir's wise words shine bright again.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXb_22G8bdU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## SLB (Aug 27, 2015)

I like Colin but he did try to make the car argument before. He'll never admit he was wrong on anything.


----------



## Savior (Aug 27, 2015)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> *America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and 15 times as many as Germany*



Pretty soon you will have to walk around with a bulletproof vest in America.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 27, 2015)

sedated...

Dylan Roof was motivated by white supremacist culture. White supremacist and nationalist culture espouses the specific ideologies that whites are inherently superior to all other races and that an ideal society is one where the white race rules over all, and blacks in particular live in subjugation as they did in times past. It also encourages and advocates the use of violence and intimidation as a means to further that cause. That is a culture that exists within the South, for a long time it was the dominant cultural mindset; that is not however the same as being Southern culture itself. The victims as well were southerners, and products of southern culture a different aspect of it.

Elliot Rodgers hated women, but he also hated men. He hated men that he felt got what he deserved, and what they did not in contrast. He hated women because he felt they owed him something that they did not give him. His victims were both men and women. His mindset was not a product of some larger culture, they were a matter of his own personal delusions and his inflated sense of self and what he felt everyone else owed him. 

All the same this shooter's motivations were a product of his own irrational mind. He had, as we know, years of erratic and violent behavior. He has constant memoirs that give a peek into his mindset. He admired people like the Columbine Shooters, and the gunman of the Virginia Tech massacre. Compounded with his own perceived injustices as it relates to his own circumstances of being gay and black, and being discriminated against by just about everyone around him on those characteristics. He contradicts himself in his motives, he says it was about the Charleston shooting, but then he constantly went on about his personal vendettas against the people he killed specifically and that is why he was going after them. This guy beforehand was involved in incidents like watching an elderly man beg for help and just watching him, or bizarrely throwing cat feces at neighbor's apartments. This is not a product of some larger culture, this really is some individual that was losing his grip on reality. He was told to get help and didn't and he used any rationalization he could in order to feed into his deteriorating mentality. Making oneself the victim in one's personal narrative is a common means to do that in general this is not a matter of culture.

Don't come here with your gripes on people that aren't even apart of this forum. You want to bitch about the liberal-biased sources sending inaccurate messages on these matters actually fucking email the sites instead of trying to call out people when you don't even know the first thing about their position on the matters, and when you yourself don't even know much on any of the matters you cited.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Moody said:


> I like Colin but he did try to make the car argument before. He'll never admit he was wrong on anything.



What video was that? 

Honestly most, if not all his videos make total sense. For most people who go nuts about guns he is level headed on his arguments.



Flow said:


> That's not 'banning' it. It's companies/agencies wanting nothing more to do with it.
> 
> The fact that you even tried to compare the Confederate Flag to the Gay Flag is fucking stupid within itself. Why are you even trying to deny this?




Yes it is. Its banning it without really slapping the "banned" label on it.

I wasn't comparing the flags per say more so the reactions to Dylan Roofe vs this guy and how the backlash is very lopsided. Its not because someone is black or white with any crime as the MSM always likes to cry. Dylan Roofe doesn't represent the South as much as the KKK holding up American Flags represents the USA. Or how the Nazi didn't represent the whole of Germany. The comparisons of some are severely stupid. 

Now that doesn't mean I think people should bash the Confederate flag either because its a piece of cloth that was made for battle. It does not represent slavery no matter what anyone says.


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yes it is. Its banning it without really slapping the "banned" label on it.
> 
> I wasn't comparing the flags per say more so the reactions to Dylan Roofe vs this guy and how the backlash is very lopsided.




It was a terrible example to use in the first place considering the history behind both flags. One being used to intimidate an entire race of people prior to also being used to enslave others..



> Its not because someone is black or white with any crime as the MSM always likes to cry. Dylan Roofe doesn't represent the South as much as the KKK holding up American Flags represents the USA. Or how the Nazi didn't represent the whole of Germany. The comparisons of some are severely stupid.



The Confederate flag has been used as a way to represent the right to own other human beings as slaves, to intimidate other races, "Southern Pride"White power, etc. Trying to compare the KKK holding the US flag is laughable in a sense and you know it. 

It's not like you see these  a good amount of southerners that are 'proud of the Confederate Flag' speak out against racism, attend rallies against the KKK, skinheads/neonazis, and try to take the flag back as their own. They conveniently come out when people rightfully talk shit about the Confederate flag and say "The flag isn't about slavery or racism". Then they disperse  when these topics die down within the states but sprout back up when someone has an issue with the flag.

Would you say that the Nazi flag shouldn't had been taken down in places like France?



> Now that doesn't mean I think people should bash the Confederate flag either because its a piece of cloth that was made for battle. It does not represent slavery no matter what anyone says.




For someone that claims to do a lot of research and has a "I don't drink the kool-aid" mentality, you have a habit of saying air-headed shit. Yes, the Confederate flag represents the oppression of other races within the States, and flown by people using it fighting to enslave an entire ethnic group of people.


----------



## EnterTheTao (Aug 27, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> The gay flag was lit up on the White House. Should Barry apologize for that and swear to never do it again?



lgbtq people =/= slaver nation

try harder mega


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 27, 2015)

The gays are oppressors.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 27, 2015)

EnterTheTao said:


> lgbtq people =/= slaver nation
> 
> try harder mega



It's LGBTTQQIAAP  bigot.


----------



## EJ (Aug 27, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The gays are oppressors.



Some people legitimately believe this to a certain extent.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Aug 27, 2015)

Bioness oppressed this forum for years through the use of the report button


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 28, 2015)

The gays are also a good thread deviation to avoid talking about the real issues.


----------



## Lucaniel (Aug 28, 2015)

man this thread is a mess

i say this not only because of the current tangent but after going back to page 8 and seeing zerodestroyer posting some conspiracy theory tweet about these shootings being staged


----------



## Shodai (Aug 28, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34078308


----------



## Shodai (Aug 28, 2015)

This thread is just left wingers trying to come up with solutions to what is evidently a massive problem in America that other MEDCs don't have, and right wingers throwing a tantrum about the fact that the shooter was gay & black whilst denying that more guns = less safe

embarrassing


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 28, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Try to read carefully here. Historically, the south has had an inviting atmosphere to white supremacy, it was a mentality that dominated this region for most of its history. This is simple fact. However, that has largely subsided. What is also simple fact is that it was not southern culture in general that drove the Roof to commit the murders he did, but it was a culture that has existed within the south of white supremacy and nationalism.


Southern culture even American culture today was blamed. It what I was referring to with "wider context, and culture that influence".



Seto Kaiba said:


> This incident is not a matter of victim culture. That's it.


So victim culture does actually exist? Can I get confirmation on this point. 




Seto Kaiba said:


> Ugh...His personal feelings of discrimination is not a part of a larger culture, that is where you are entirely wrong.


Are you saying his personal feelings of being oppressed and a constant victim of discrimination, is not part of a culture that reinforces that promotes that he is oppressed and a constant victim of discrimination?



Seto Kaiba said:


> You don't even know what double standard you are even pointing out to begin with. You just came out here with a bone to pick against some progressive bogeyman, and came at people in this thread specifically with this ignorance as if they wrote the articles you cited.


One of the first articles I read about this made the assumption that he was white. 
example:
"The murder of Allison, Adam, and the wounding of Vicki Gardner is part of a larger disease that includes the pro-gun segment of society and filters up through many platforms in American culture. In a virulent reaction to powerful, strong women who have gained opportunities following the emergence of the Feminist Movement in America, it has become common for failed men to turn their anger, fear, and vitriol at themselves onto women"

Yet this ended when it was found out that he was black, was very much a part of the progressive activist culture. 

When I pointed out the double standard you disagreed with me. I didn't single you out, you singled me out. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> You came in here trying to call people like myself out, jackass. Then you brought up sources completely irrelevant to that matter as if people here authored those articles.
> 
> You don't even know the first thing you want to harp on about yet here you are.


My post was to point out the hypocrisy is the progressive response(specifically after watching TYT video), that is in no way limited to this forum. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Once again. You cited articles that have *no relevance* to the people here you were trying to call out.
> 
> Not to mention that their bullshit does not again, make yours valid. You keep moronically talking about this victim culture that you haven't even really established. You can't even get the story straight on any of the individuals you cited.


You responded to my post about "wider context, and culture that influence", southern culture/American culture as exampled by the sources. 
You said I was wrong to claim that these people shouldn't paint such a broad brush on culture... now you agree with me. 

It sounds like you are a touch defensive.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 28, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> sedated...
> 
> Dylan Roof was motivated by white supremacist culture. White supremacist and nationalist culture espouses the specific ideologies that whites are inherently superior to all other races and that an ideal society is one where the white race rules over all, and blacks in particular live in subjugation as they did in times past. It also encourages and advocates the use of violence and intimidation as a means to further that cause. That is a culture that exists within the South, for a long time it was the dominant cultural mindset; that is not however the same as being Southern culture itself. The victims as well were southerners, and products of southern culture a different aspect of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 28, 2015)

sadated_peon said:


> Southern culture even American culture today was blamed. It what I was referring to with "wider context, and culture that influence".



Even after me telling you what culture he was actually influenced by you still came at me bitching about double standards. Which you still have yet to establish.



> So victim culture does actually exist? Can I get confirmation on this point.



You are ridiculously obtuse. The shooter and Ellitot Rodgers in particular once again, were not motivated by a culture of victimization. It was their own individual delusions for their own individual circumstances. As I stated before, making one the victim in one's personal narrative is a common method to reinforce one's state of mind on these matters. This is not a matter of culture.



> Are you saying his personal feelings of being oppressed and a constant victim of discrimination, is not part of a culture that reinforces that promotes that he is oppressed and a constant victim of discrimination?



No, it isn't. Those again are a matter of his own personal feelings and circumstances. 



> One of the first articles I wrote about this made the assumption that he was white.



Once again, no relevance to myself or the people you attempted to call out.



> example:
> "The murder of Allison, Adam, and the wounding of Vicki Gardner is part of a larger disease that includes the pro-gun segment of society and filters up through many platforms in American culture. In a virulent reaction to powerful, strong women who have gained opportunities following the emergence of the Feminist Movement in America, it has become common for failed men to turn their anger, fear, and vitriol at themselves onto women"



Once again, it has no relevance. You have issue with this, I'll tell you again address the people that actually wrote it. 



> Yet this ended when it was found out that he was black, was very much a part of the progressive activist culture.



He wasn't part of any movement. He was a guy that secluded himself and fed into his own delusional mindset. You assume he was progressive because he was gay and black, he had no activist background at all. You just sound like an idiot.



> When I pointed out the double standard you disagreed with me. I didn't single you out, you singled me out.



You haven't even established any double standard, and no, you did try to call me out. For reasons you clearly don't even know to begin with. You came at me with stories that you didn't even bother knowing about. 



> My post was to point out the hypocrisy is the progressive response(specifically after watching TYT video), that is in no way limited to this forum.



Then direct that ire toward them. You were talking about people here too, when again, you knew jack shit of what their positions were or the events you chose to cite. 



> You responded to my post about "wider context, and culture that influence", southern culture/American culture as exampled by the sources.
> You said I was wrong to claim that these people shouldn't paint such a broad brush on culture... now you agree with me.



You were wrong to make assumptions on my position and others that you hadn't even bothered to look into. You were conflating your personal gripes with liberal sources with what people were saying here.

Refresher:



sadated_peon said:


> I find the reaction to this guys motives... disturbing.
> 
> People who said we need look at Dylan Roof in a wider context, and culture that influence this madman to pick his targets.
> 
> ...





Seto Kaiba said:


> What the flying fuck are you even going on about?
> 
> Dylan Roof was a white nationalist that embraced supremacist rhetoric. It's clear what cultural influence had an effect on his mind, on top of already being unstable.
> 
> Cases like these, aren't so much an issue of cultural influence.





sadated_peon said:


> Yea, people like this. You are exactly what I am talking about.



You have to have some crippling lack of short-term memory here.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 28, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You are making preemptive assumptions about other sources to justify your own biases. No source I'll cite will be credible to you because you've already decided it's not what you want to hear. However, like I said I am trying to avoid those with some blatant agenda in mind.



If this is going on, it applies to you as well.  You don't dismiss the facts I cite, you just don't like the sourcing.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The numbers are overstated, at best estimates are said to be in the hundreds of thousands, not millions or anywhere in that ballpark. I know people use guns for self-defense, you aren't making a relevant point in bringing it up. Because nowhere did I deny that people use guns for their own personal and lawful use.



The point of bringing it up is to show the positive effects of gun ownership, something you continue to try to minimize.  Let's summarize this argument.  You want gun control to stop criminals from getting guns even tho there's no evidence this would work and past history shows there's no correlation between gun control and violent crime.

I want gun rights because of documented crime rates going down, documented cases of citizens being able to defend themselves and the freedom of the individual to own a weapon and protect his own person.  In mere summary form my argument is superior.  You're hoping that gun control will do something its never done in the past.  I'm standing on established fact and logic.  You can quibble that some of my sources overstate their cases.  I'll grant you that.  But that doesn't invalidate my argument.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Also you are once again being selective. Select cities that have them are less safe, yet more cities with lax laws and greater ownership also see more crime involving firearms. You are completely ignoring as well the entire countries, like our own neighbor up north which has stricter gun laws and significantly lower incidents of gun-related and homicide per capita.



That's not really comparable.  If this were an experiment you wouldn't compare Canada to the US.  They are two different states.  A better comparison is the same area under two different policies.  That's why studies on D.C., Chicago, England and Jamaica are so striking.  Its not comparing apples to oranges, its comparing two apples.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm bringing up two aspects which most often occur in the home in relation to firearms. Accidents, and suicides.



Neither is relevant.  Accidents will happen no matter what you own.  No amount of regulation will prevent gun owners from having accidents with their guns, just as no amount of car regulations will prevent car accidents.  The fact that you don't get this exposes the irrationality of your stance.

Furthermore suicide is a function of mental health, not gun ownership.  You're merely focusing on the means of suicide.  True, in the US, where people own more guns people are more likely to use a gun to kill themselves.  That's not really meaningful statistically.  If you were making a mathematical relationship between suicide and some other variable you wouldn't focus on gun ownership.  You'd focus on mental health.

Since our suicide rate is not higher than many other states similar to us its erroneous to blame suicides on gun ownership.  It just doesn't make sense.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Being properly trained in firearms can reduce accidents, not enough training is given on that. Many times a person gets cleared to buy a gun and while they may clear, that does not address personal ignorance on handling them.



That's true, but that's the responsibility of the citizen to handle.  The law should focus on what should be legal and not legal, not on trying to take responsibility from the citizenry.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Suicide as I stated again, is about a more rigorous method of determining state of mind of individuals; sometimes suicidal thoughts can again, become homicidal.



So what.  That has nothing to do with gun ownership.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You're not paying attention, bacon. I just stated that it is, but assessing that state of mind should always play a factor in the gun trade.



How would you regulate this?  Who's to say you aren't sane when you buy the gun but go insane after a few years and decide to use it?  There's not a good way to prevent people from owning guns since most people have a right to own one.  You can do a mental assessment only once: at the time of sale.



Seto Kaiba said:


> This is not addressing the point I raised in relation to it...



How so?  Its possible I missed your point in all of our quoting and requoting.  If I missed it, it wasn't intentional.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You also dodged how the article laid out that a higher concentration of guns in an area also had a higher concentration of gun-related violence. You are just sidestepping points that are inconvenient to how you want to see this matter.



Not at all.  We should expect that more guns will lead to more gun usage.  I don't see why this is meaningful.  Instead show me homicide rates, something that tangibly could link gun ownership and increased crime.  "Gun violence" is too generic; gun violence could be me shooting a guy who broke into my house.



Seto Kaiba said:


> A lumberjack or one who works with lumber would use such equipment more frequently and be subject to such accidents. It's a stupid comparison, not to mention a gun is explicitly made with the intention of inflicting harm and killing individuals. A person owning a gun shouldn't blind themselves to that fact, I certainly don't.



So what.  The point is that gun accidents are not a reason to ban guns anymore than burning yourself should be a reason to ban hot stoves.  Yes, guns are dangerous.  You're not exactly breaking new ground by bringing that up.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Well that's definitely a stupid comparison. Modern medicine, bacon.



Sarcasm flies right over your head, doesn't it?



Seto Kaiba said:


> But we can look at examples to see that it does. There are more examples than not. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that.



Then cite specific examples of an area moving to more gun control and that resulting in less crime.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The irony in this statement.



Is probably that you don't know what irony means.



Seto Kaiba said:


> How about again, the Northeast as well as Canada? A society very similar to our own. You are being dishonest, as I stated, it's about a lack of resources in these areas.



That's stupid to bring up.  If the same, lack of resources existed before and after the enactment of gun control that point is MOOT.  Why don't you get that?  We're not comparing Chicago to Idaho.  We're comparing Chicago to Chicago.  This should be very simple to understand.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Because these areas are plagued by many additional factors that include a high rate of gun violence that lead to their present situations. It has little to do if anything with the fact that they have stricter gun laws. It's just a stupid argument.



Its not stupid.  You apparently don't understand how comparative analysis works.



Seto Kaiba said:


> How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about banning guns?



First, some on your side are.  Second, more regulation does mean less gun ownership.  There's no other reason for the regulation if it doesn't impose more limits and less ownership.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm talking about enforcing our actual laws in regard to them, and reviewing the effectiveness of existing laws and the resources we distribute to make enforcement possible. Places like Israel, Switzerland, and Norway actually enforce their gun laws. These places have more stringent rules in place that despite your attempt to use them to justify we we shouldn't do anything, only establishes that we should be doing something.



Those places have less crime in general than the US, so whenever they focus on something they can cut it down significantly.  The city of Chicago can never fully eliminate its crime problem like those places can, so comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges.

Not to mention most police departments are already doing that.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No kidding, that's kind of my point. Once again, you ignore that you have cities in the U.S. and Canada separated merely by rivers and lakes yet there is a world of difference between firearm related incidents between them. Your excuses are insufficient to explain this difference.



There's a difference in almost every category between them.  Focusing on guns as the difference between them is simplistic.



Seto Kaiba said:


> My livescience article already addressed this claim. John Lott has considerably compromised credibility on this matter because he has a reputation of misrepresenting data.



Your link is discussing I meme I've never seen or used before.  It has nothing to do with me.  And Lott made much more points than the survey you continue to critique.  Even in that survey no one thinks he changed the results or did anything untoward.  He used poll results and some people think the results are overstated.  They make a great case, but his other arguments are still valid.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't get people like you that always try to throw England under the bus. There is also Australia which actually did ban guns and did not see a rise either.



I don't try and throw England under the bus.  I just don't believe the myths surrounding it.  And your data on Austrailia is inconclusive.  Crime rates didn't go down, so gun control wasn't effective.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You are just going to sources with blatant biases here. This is ridiculous.



I'm going to quote sources that have the facts.  Many of them do so because its their business to study these numbers.  If that intimidates you you can always flee the discussion.



Seto Kaiba said:


> What's more is you are comparing a place like Jamaica, a pretty poor country as an example when you ignorantly try and deny just about every other nation with gun control laws that see considerably fewer incidents related to firearms. Once again, you are being dishonest.



This proves you don't read my links.  The Jamaica argument doesn't compare Jamaica to another state; it compare Jamaica before gun control and after gun control.  So try again.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Once, again extreme selectivity. Look at the incident of gun-related homicides and violence in the United States, the highest rate of them occur in places which do have more lax gun laws than not. Primarily states of the South most notably.



I don't think that's the case, but the only way to know for sure would be to measure how the crime rates would change after a change in the law.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Yes, as well as try to prevent and solve crimes in general. I suppose they should just give up on that since there are people that will commit crimes anyway, right?



This is stupid, even if its a joke.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It's not about trying harder
> 
> This is just what I mean, when you can't address a point you go on this dishonest route. It's about allocating greater resources to them so that they are more able to do their jobs. It's about acknowledging that many PDs across the country simply do not have the proper means to address the issues in their neck of the woods. A place like Chicago has an overextended police force, and a dwindling one. Not to mention a public infrastructure in general that once again needs addressing. The same for Detroit, and many of the dilapidated areas of the United States that suffer the most from firearm-related crimes.



First, that's a stupid point because the studies I cite use the same areas before and after gun control.  Second, its a stupid point because those areas are already trying to do the things you state.  Third, its stupid because the same constraints they face will continue into the foreseeable future.  So in essence you're telling me what they should do to prevent gun crime while acknowledging that, with their constraints, its impossible to do what you want.  That literally makes no sense.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Yet you say to do nothing.



Yep, took the quote right from what I said.  I wish you could quote me on this, tho.  I can't find where I said these words myself.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No it isn't. You are moronically trying to argue as if the rate of crime in Chicago is tied to its gun control laws. It's not. The issues of crime are related to a far more expansive matter that you have clearly shown zero awareness of.



Not at all.  I've never said the crime is solely due to its gun laws.  That's your strawman (or do you still want to pretend you never commit those informal fallacies?).  But we're discussing gun control in relation to gun crime and in this narrow discussion gun laws certainly haven't done Chicago any favors.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Now that is a dumb argument. It has been reduced, it is not as large as an epidemic was as in the 80s or 90s. You are ridiculously trying to argue that since it was not reduced to zero the effort was not worth it at all. It's completely absurd.
> 
> You keep making these redundant statements. Time and again I tell you it's about reduction and prevention. Total eradication is not a realistic goal in mind.



I never said any such thing.  One day you'll have to read what I actually wrote.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It's odd because they are data-mining. They don't have an interest in displaying an honest narrative, just one that they personally favor. That's why bacon.



You missed my point, which at this point is predictable.  So let me say it again.  If they are datamining why are they citing tables that you say go against their own claims?



Seto Kaiba said:


> I've cited numerous sources that show the blatant falsehoods or misleading statements of your own.



No, you haven't.  Pretending you have might make you feel good but it doesn't substantiate your argument.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Now, this is where we get to where you start bullshitting.
> 
> You consider everything that is not dead in center with your ideology as liberal. Those sources are not liberal, they are as purely factual as they come. I avoided actual liberal sources for this reason.



And I've given you direct apples to apples comparisons and you only have excuses as to why you won't accept them, excuses that don't hold any water.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You really haven't. An armed person dealing with armed criminals is actually more likely to suffer injury or death. It's common sense, bacon. Criminals are not going to be the most rational people, you present yourself as a real threat with the presence of a weapon and it is even worse if they get the drop on you. This is not some movie, and we are not all Dirty Harry.



That's stupid.  You're the only person I know who would rather face a break in without a weapon.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 28, 2015)

You're engaging in doublespeak.

When you are trying to make your case you constantly cited other countries such as Switzerland, completely ignoring that 1. They enforce their gun laws 2. They have stricter gun laws 3. They additionally have a significantly lower rate of violence and homicide through the use of firearms. That would completely undermine your argument. What is more is that they are just as different in circumstance if not moreso than say, Canada, yet you seem to have no problem using them in a bid to make your case.

Second, England may see a higher rate of VIOLENCE but they have a significantly lower rate of violence involving firearms and homicide, and homicide through the use of firearms. Your attempt to throw them under the bus is particularly dishonest. The same for Australia. Even if I don't support banning firearms, their measures saw a significant decrease in firearm-related violence and homicides. Go figure, that homicides in general dropped since it is much easier to kill a person with a firearm. 

However, when I bring up the closest possible example we have, Canada. Again, whom has cities that are only separated by our own by mere lakes and rivers yet have a significantly lower rate of firearm related incidents you try to say it is not a valid comparison. For reason you can't even really seem to articulate. 

What's more, is you keep talking about crime rates going down with gun ownership, when no actual study supports that. You are getting your information from sources that explicitly desire to push a specific narrative and have been called out on their dishonesty. Yet you fallaciously try to excuse that as every source having a bias. All you are just doing is try to justify what I think you already know are sources that have suspect credibility, because they push the narrative that you personally want to be true yourself. 

The first article I cited addresses the claims, as well as your additionally fallacious claim that DGU prevents millions of crimes a year. Higher concentrations of gun ownership actually see higher rates of gun violence and homicide; the states of the south have among the loosest gun laws in the country and yet the highest rate of firearm related homicides in the country for example.

This is where you get selective and dishonest. You keep trying to cite Chicago as a failure of gun regulation, ignoring that they do not have the resources to properly enforce the law period; and they have a poor infrastructure. What drives their high rate of crime is not a matter of strict gun control as you and the sources you provide try to present. Their high rate of crime is due to the impoverished and dilapidated conditions that exist in the city.


----------



## Amanda (Aug 28, 2015)

My instincs tell me this thread is shit tier and that nothing will change in the Eagleland.

It also tells internet is already worshipping this murderer as a freedom fighter. 



But more importantly, I'm waiting when some white hooligan decideds he must avenge the white martyrs and murders some completely innocent black guys.


Murican civil war round two draws closer.


----------



## EJ (Aug 28, 2015)

Amanda said:


> Murican civil war round two draws closer.



Most people aren't into that shit within the US. There is racism to a large degree, but not to that level where a civil war will happen because of it specifically.


----------



## Forever Mickey (Aug 28, 2015)

False flag opp


----------



## Zyrax (Aug 28, 2015)

Forever Mickey said:


> False flag opp


Hello Alex Jones I didn't know you were into Animu


----------



## Kanga (Aug 28, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> man this thread is a mess
> 
> i say this not only because of the current tangent but after going back to page 8 and seeing zerodestroyer posting some conspiracy theory tweet about these shootings being staged




Dem Illuminutty at it again best get informed nun beliber.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 28, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> When you are trying to make your case you constantly cited other countries such as Switzerland, completely ignoring that 1. They enforce their gun laws 2. They have stricter gun laws 3. They additionally have a significantly lower rate of violence and homicide through the use of firearms. That would completely undermine your argument. What is more is that they are just as different in circumstance if not moreso than say, Canada, yet you seem to have no problem using them in a bid to make your case.



First, I'm not against all gun laws.  I'm against more gun laws.  Second, I have no problem enforcing current law.  Third, none of this undermines my argument because you're comparing two vastly different cultures.  America would never see the same rate of violence Sweden does no matter what we do.  We have challenges they don't.

However if you want to compare the effectiveness of a policy examine the well being of a city or state before and after the gun control is enacted or ended.  In the cases we've looked at there is no decrease in violence when gun control is inacted.  This includes Austrailia, which you cited previously.  However we have seen increases in violence when gun control is imposed.  This is not debatable.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Second, England may see a higher rate of VIOLENCE but they have a significantly lower rate of violence involving firearms and homicide, and homicide through the use of firearms. Your attempt to throw them under the bus is particularly dishonest. The same for Australia. Even if I don't support banning firearms, their measures saw a significant decrease in firearm-related violence and homicides. Go figure, that homicides in general dropped since it is much easier to kill a person with a firearm.



You're distorting the facts.  England has not seen a decrease in gun violence since they enacted new gun control laws.  My links already discussed the bogus nature of that claim.



Seto Kaiba said:


> However, when I bring up the closest possible example we have, Canada. Again, whom has cities that are only separated by our own by mere lakes and rivers yet have a significantly lower rate of firearm related incidents you try to say it is not a valid comparison. For reason you can't even really seem to articulate.



I've already articulated this.  Canada has a different culture and population than we do.  The same with Mexico.  A better comparison than different cities with the only similarity their proximity to each other is the same city under both sets of laws.  That would be much more conclusive.



Seto Kaiba said:


> What's more, is you keep talking about crime rates going down with gun ownership, when no actual study supports that.



If you factor in gun ownership in Switzerland and Israel crime rates go down as gun ownership goes up.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You are getting your information from sources that explicitly desire to push a specific narrative and have been called out on their dishonesty.



I acknowledge that my sources are biased.  That doesn't make the facts wrong.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You keep trying to cite Chicago as a failure of gun regulation, ignoring that they do not have the resources to properly enforce the law period; and they have a poor infrastructure.



Which is a stupid point.  Think of mathematics and you're trying to compare two sides of the same equation.  When you're measuring Chicago pre-gun control laws with Chicago afterwards both sides of the equation have the same resources, the same infrastructure and the same population base.  Therefore bringing them up is pointless.

The thing that changed?  Gun control laws.  And crime went up accordingly.  Now that Illinois passed concealed carry laws crime in Chicago blipped downwards.  Again, bringing up enforcement and infrastructure is empty and naive excuse making since it applied before and after the law is enacted.  It makes the point highlighted that only some people, mainly people who don't live a criminal lifestyle, will follow the law.  Criminals, by definition, don't.  Therefore most gun control serves to give a disadvantage to the legal abiding citizens while giving an advantage to those who have weapons illegally.

And it hasn't slipped my attention that you're still the only guy I know who thinks having a weapon makes you less safe.  I guess every RPG will have to recalibrate and make your attack power go down when you equip a weapon.


----------



## comradeclaus (Aug 29, 2015)

Flow said:


> It was a terrible example to use in the first place considering the history behind both flags. One being used to intimidate an entire race of people prior to also being used to enslave others..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the flag of islam did far worse to africans than the jonny reb banner, plus it still torments africans via the sudan gov't, the janjaweed (600000 murders & millions of rapes in the past decade) & boko harm & terrorists in kenya

plus the soviet banner (& it's successors) killed vastly more than the nazi flag, yet neither the muslim crescent & star nor the hammer & sickle are globally banned


----------



## comradeclaus (Aug 29, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Put armed guards at schools problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



well, the gays did kill a Holocaust worth of people, mostly people of color btw, through aids alone.

the super syphilis, super gonorrhea, supe herpes

can you guys bible-fu?

pork isn't kosher because pigs are a disease factor to humans

gays were banned because they are a disease reservoir

the jews didn't have to be scientists to make the connection, but you guys are all "lol chiristfags r dumb"

gaeton dugas aidsfucked/killed some 2500 other gays

plus the rainbow flag triggers all the guys gayraped when they were little shotas, but neg me anyway


----------



## BashFace (Aug 30, 2015)

I think people in general need to grow up and stop blaming regulations for peoples actions. It would be different if the dude picked up a gun after just checking out of a mental asylum or showing that kind of potential for violence but man it gets carried away. 

The chef blames his knife when he cuts his finger when it was probably just an accident that will happen in the kitchen. Not knives at fault, maybe chefs if anything. If someone has a gun and intends to use it inappropriately than that is totally to do with intention and not regulation or an instrument. 

I've seen people who don't have guns but live the self-proclaimed thug life and they carry switch blades, take away the blade and they're still violent people or "thugs". 

People will do what they will and instruments only aid intention. 

Yeah ok maybe less people would die in mass murders etc if they had switch blades instead of ak-47's but fuck it gets carried away from one school shooting a month or so or random isolated incidents to some sort of absolutism or general rule of thumb people try to appropriate by elaborating on crazy talk or hysteria.

I believe even people who are against gun use may potentially exasperate the willingness to use/buy one by stipulating that guns are a problem and are equal to the most dangerous instrument held or managed by common man.(exclude bomb materials which is usually non-debatable) It suggests in itself that guns can only be dealt with by harsher regulation or by another gun and sort of deludes people into this idea that their guns are in danger or guns are more dangerous because of these/this misconceptions, hysteria, debate,discourse/conflict/disharmony.

People don't need to be sheltered off from the world and regulated this much they need to grow up/evolve. If we have laser guns in the future(say it is possible for the sake of argument if it isn't somehow I'm no chemist or scientist or whatever you'd need to be) will normal guns be more freely/easily managed/regulated because I mean shit we have laser guns now and people are still insanely irresponsible and whiny? Do we deal with these problems as they come or can we think reasonably about the potential the future holds if we still treat our fellow man like children that we know better than?


----------



## Krory (Aug 30, 2015)

> The chef blames his knife when he cuts his finger



No he doesn't.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Aug 30, 2015)

Anti-gunners stay mad. Colin Noir strikes again.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9es3KDg8OAg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Dark Forces (Aug 31, 2015)

props to this man, letting go the only one true law : action-reaction
this is far less sad than those being constantly shat on and never doing anything about it


----------

