Charleston church shooting: Without gun control, racism will keep killing black people

[Violet_Crumble]

America does not have a monopoly on racism. But what makes its racism so lethal is the ease with which people can acquire guns

This time it’s different.

Mass shootings have become a banal fact of death in America. (Last year there were 283 incidents in which four or more people were shot.) The nation as a whole, meanwhile, has become newly sensitised to racial violence, with growing activism around police shootings. In April video of a white policeman shooting Walter Scott – an unarmed African American – eight times in the back in as he ran away in North Charleston, South Carolina, went viral.

But the shooting of nine black church-goers in Charleston (not far from where Scott was killed) by a white gunman in what police are treating as a “hate crime” marks a doubling down on the nation’s twin pathologies of racism and guns. Both are deeply rooted in the nation’s history since its founding: neither are going anywhere soon.

The timing of this particular tragedy, given the heightened consciousness and activism around the #BlackLivesMatter movement, provides a particular lens through which to view this massacre. When Barack Obama won the South Carolina primary in 2008 a huge multiracial crowd gathered in the state capitol of Columbia and chanted “race doesn’t matter”.

With each new well-publicised account of racial violence, be it at the hands of the state or the public, claims that the arrival of a black president signals the arrival of a post-racial era collapses under the weight of its own delusion.

Racism isn’t dead. We know this because it keeps killing black people.

The fact that Clementa Pinckney, a state senator, was among the dead indicates that nobody is safe. The fact that it took place in a church during a prayer meeting indicates that nowhere is safe.

America does not have a monopoly on racism. But what makes its racism so lethal is the ease with which people can acquire guns. While the new conversation around race will mean the political response to the fact of this attack will be different, the stale conversation around gun control means the legislative response to the nature of this attack will remain the same. Nothing will happen.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/18/charleston-church-shooting-gun-control-racism-killing-black-people-us

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Guns + hate radio is an incredibly toxic mix.

[NaturalHigh]

2. Nice the way they capitalize on a tragedy so quickly.

[99Forever]

7. Nice way gun bullies kill innocents on a daily basis.

The NRA is a terrorist cult.

[linuxman]

8. Sure.

I believe you believe that.

[99Forever]

10. I don't care what you believe.

[linuxman]

12. Oh you care.

[99Forever]

13. Bub bye.

[sarisataka]

26. It's in the manual:

From the PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING

p. 1 Its purpose is to offer clear advice about effective frames and messages across a broad variety of communication opportunities.


p. 40
The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents,
including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an
incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications
efforts.

The purpose of this section of our guide is to present some advice about how to make sure our communications
are powerful, impactful and appropriate to these unique circumstances.

We believe that the following nine guideposts should be helpful both when we encounter high-profile
incidents that attract national attention – and when a similar dynamic occurs in a local community

p. 41 It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
***
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into our
broader argument.

p.43 But, when talking to broader audiences, we want to make sure we meet them where they are. That
means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions, keeping our facts and our case simple and
direct, and avoiding arguments that leave people thinking they don’t know enough about the topic
to weigh in.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

This isn't a mass murder; it is a communication opportunity, a unique climate for our communications efforts and a a similar dynamic occuring in a local community.

Although I note many forget

It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.

before flowing into the message.

[NaturalHigh]

28. Wow! I've never seen that before.

Says a lot, doesn't it?

[sarisataka]

30. It is why I am cynical

of virtually ever gun control org. They have 71 page manual on how to exploit victims of gun violence.

I read the entire thing and did a word use analysis. The word victim is used 30 times in this manual- 10 on the front cover graphic, 10 times on the back graphic, 5 times cautioning not to use any personal relations to a gun violence victim alienate the potential audience, three times as a statistic header, twice as a reminder to open with "an expression of concern".
Not a single mention of actual concern for victims.

[Nevernose]

31. You read it

Did you happen to notice who published it or why? Who is this mysterious "they?"

[sarisataka]

35. It is unclear who funded it

it was linked by many gun control organizations when it came out. As word spread and negative publicity built, most have removed direct links.

As for the creators, this is from the intro:

It has been prepared by a team of communicators who have
brought to the table decades of experience advising organizations on message development and strategic
communications:

FRANK O’BRIEN, creative director and founder of OMP, a communications and fundraising firm that
consults to a host of brand name charitable and advocacy organizations. Mr. O’Brien is widely recognized
as one of the leading direct response strategists in the country.

AL QUINLAN heads Greenberg Quinlan Rosner’s team of U.S. political analysts and campaign pollsters.
Mr. Quinlan’s specialty is delivering strategic consultation and issue management advice to a broad
range of issue groups, corporations and political campaigns.

JOHN NEFFINGER AND MATTHEW KOHUT, principals in KNP Communications, a highly-regarded communications
consulting firm. Neffinger and Kohut have more than a decade of experience preparing
politicians, corporate executives, and others to communicate effectively..

[CreekDog]

33. oh? when is it acceptable to bring it up?

there's no time between shootings anymore.

[uponit7771]

69. Says someone who doesn't have to think about these things...

[cali]

3. short of gun ban laws like those in England, it won't work

and the 2nd Amendment and how its been interpreted by the SC, make instituting gun ban laws, exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. As the article notes, neither our sick culture of guns or our sick culture of racism is going anywere soon.

Depressing.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I think there's that weird gun culture, as well as the 2nd Amendment that are the problems...

I think if neither of those things existed, it'd still be a struggle, but introducing laws like Australia did would work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_politics_in_Australia#Australian_firearm_laws

It's totally depressing that massacres just keep on happening in the US and they're going to continue

[DanTex]

37. That's obviously not true. The rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. also have tiny

amounts of gun violence compared to the US. None of them have gun laws as strict as England's. They do, of course, have much stronger gun laws than the US, but there's a lot of room in between.

One simple and quick solution would be to place handguns and semi-automatic rifles under the National Firearms Act, which currently governs automatic weapons and things like short-barrel shotguns. They are not banned, but they are registered and heavily regulated -- you have to tell the ATF and get written pre-approval every time you are transferring one, and the licensing and background check requirements are much more extensive than what the Brady Bill requires (photograph, fingerprints, etc.). In fact, when NFA was being passed in the 30s, handguns were possibly going to be part of it. Ultimately they didn't, a decision that probably cost something like a million lives and counting.

This gun, for example, was bought as a gift by a father to his 21-year old son. It is possible to buy an NFA gun for a 21-year old son as a present, but it is not easy. Both the buyer and the recipient would have to be approved, and it requires much more of a commitment than right now, where you just go to a store and come home with a gun and give it to your kid, as if you were buying him an iPad.

As far as the second amendment, that's only an issue as long as the supreme court remains right wing. Giving up on gun control because of Heller is equivalent to giving up on campaign finance reform because of Citizens United.

[demmiblue]

4. K&R

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Racists would rather have defenseless victims

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026856217

[lostnfound]

9. So in the happy world you envision, we are all stuck carrying guns to church..?

To lunch out at a sidewalk cafe? To a movie theatre? To a public swimming area?

Personally I like feeling unencumbered.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. In the linked story the police were part of the attacking Klan rally. How would disarming

their intended victims have made the story better?

[CreekDog]

34. it's a conservative meme that gun control supporters are trying to disarm African Americans

you and others continually try to peddle that meme here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. Of the two of us which one of us insists the parishioners be disarmed by force of law?

[CreekDog]

47. gun control is not disarming people

the caricature of gun control that you're accusing me of does, but that's not what i and most others support.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. What gun control do you propose will stop criminals without

infringing on people's right to self defense?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. I'd rather not see racists have easy access to guns...

That way those who have got the urge to go out and start shooting people don't have a gun to do it with.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Criminals have easy access to anything they want. What do their victims get easy access to?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Do you think those church-goers should have been carrying guns?

That in some way they could protect themselves by getting into some gunfight when the gunman started shooting?

That's ridiculous...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Every one of them? No. But a parishioner in Colorado Springs killed an active shooter.

[CreekDog]

38. I will ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU for saying "criminals have easy access to anything they want"

perhaps the dumbest thing ever said on DU.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. How's that drug war gping?

[linuxman]

62. Boom.

[CreekDog]

36. nuclear weapons?

biological weapons?

they have easy access to airplanes?

they have easy access to machine guns?

they have easy access to canons?

they have easy access to helicopters?

oh yeah, and do they have easier access to health care or guns? tell us.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Yeah. Sure. Nukes.

The logistics involved in maintaining a WMD arsenal would require an entire -- oh, what's that word -- nation. All you need is hundreds of scientists, thousands of technicians and a few hundred billion dollars.

[CreekDog]

46. you said criminals can easily access anything they want

and when i asked if they could easily get nuclear weapons, you said yes.

your post is a joke.

and it makes your other posts look worse for having posted that nonsense.

but all in service of a cause.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Why would a criminal want a nuke?

You're just lobbing poo.

[tridim]

56. Your vision of America's future SUCKS.

Rational people want no part of your lust for MORE blood.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. "Rational people want no part of your lust for MORE blood."

You're saying it's only rational so long as the racist killers are doing all the killing? How does that make sense?

[tridim]

59. No, I'm saying rational people don't like seeing MORE BLOOD SPILLED...

because of YOUR lust for guns.

Fuck that 'tude. You are a dinosaur.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. It's weird how you fixate on those who are the targets of killers and rapists bit you have nothing

to address dealing with killers and rapists.

That ain't progress.

Where were the cops? I'm guessing they were 10 to 15 minutes away. I'm also guessing when they find this monster it may require blood being spilled to suppress his ability to inflict further harm.

[malaise]

11. Isn't that the plan? n/t

[Sancho]

16. Marlon Kimpson, SC Senator on CNN now talking about "getting guns off the streets"

and if I can paraphrase...quit passing laws to allow guns in schools and churches.

Since I was just listening, I don't have a link to the interview.

I can't agree more!! It's beyond me that anyone, regardless of how dangerous they are, can openly possess guns in the US.

Believe me, someone out there knew this guy was dangerous. Laws that allow easy access to guns must change. I agree with the Senator.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. "quit passing laws to allow guns in schools and churches"

A few years ago a gunman entered a church in Colorado Springs, CO and started shooting. An armed parishioner shot and killed him.

[Sancho]

20. I don't care to live in a wild west shootout, we know guns are more often used to murder...

as I've posted many times:

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Just because you keep reposting it doesn't make it true.

Self defense is a basic human right.

[sarisataka]

25. "we know guns are more often used to murder"

The CDC disagrees...

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. SC already HAS a law against firearms in churches.

I agree, though: universal background checks, combined with far greater access to mental health records for the NICS system that the checks employ, could definitely help with mass shootings. I don't know if the shooter in Charleston had a record that would have prevented transfer of a firearm (he had arrests, but apparently no criminal convictions...I haven't read anything about his mental health history), but it might have. He seems to have been given a gun as a birthday present...don't know if it's the murder weapon. Universal background checks would have made it the gift-givers legal responsibility to have a check made.

That brings up an important point, though: mass killings are extremely high-profile events, but represent a very small fraction of total homicides in the US. Efforts to significantly reduce the grisly total would be better concentrated on the root causes of such crimes: the idiotic War on Drugs, gross economic inequality, and so forth.

[Sancho]

32. I would like to more comprehensive checks for dangerous people...

and also do something about the "war on drugs" which I agree has been stupid for many years.

I think the idea of economic inequality has surfaced for this coming election.

Mass shooting are just a part of the misuse of guns for murder/suicide, accidents, etc. that could be prevented with stronger rules to possess guns plus stronger training.

[greytdemocrat]

21. Hopefully

This POS will just be found with his brains blown out.

[romanic]

24. I'm not gonna get into

this back and forth tragedy-hijacking bullshit that everyone wants to get into without saying a word about the victims!

All I want is this man brought to justice, whether with cuffs or with a bullet.

[sarisataka]

27. Thank you

for remembering the victims and that they were people, not pawns

[CreekDog]

40. You are saying two ridiculous things that don't belong here

1) that gun control supporters cannot invoke mass shootings because they are exploiting the victims

2) that gun control supporters cannot talk about gun control or advocate for gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings.

you just want to shut people up.

the truth is you don't want gun control discussed at all and this is cover for saying that.

[sarisataka]

45. Not at all

I strongly believe in the 1st Amendment.

1) there is far more exploiting of victims than concern. Devaluing a murder or mass murder to a "communication opportunity" is a disservice to the victims.

2)gun control can be advocated at any time. The issue is how is it different during the period after a mass shooting? Does it change to "emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions"? If so then it is simply exploiting the victims.

Actually I have often proposed gun control suggestions and was closely in contact with my representatives when Minnesota passed its Domestic Violence Firearm Law. I was quite pleased with the outcome.

[CreekDog]

49. you're so predictable, in the aftermath of mass shootings you say that gun control is "emotion"

actually, that's when it's the most logical.

it's your attempt to shut down discussion of the issue that's "emotional" and your attempt to reflexively oppose any and all gun control that are the "emotional" positions.

[sarisataka]

52. Well since you seem to have overlooked

that I supported (and continue to support) gun control I don't see any need to continue

[DanTex]

58. What about people who are "using" this incident to talk about racism.

Do you think that's inappropriate too? Or just people who are talking about guns.

[sarisataka]

61. Good question

I will reply with a question- are people trying to gather support for anti-white laws?

Racism is an issue and probably a greater one than guns. He could have chained the doors and lit the church on fir; I believe that has been done before.

Racism cannot be fixed with laws, only hindered. A racist will be racist until they die or learn to overcome their bigotry. The current discussion of racism is a continuation of the ongoing discussion albeit at a higher profile.

Guns can be controlled to a large extent but like the gasoline and match cannot act without the human element. Yet if fire was the weapon of choice would there be accusations of everyone who uses either having "blood on their hands", "promoting this culture" or "being ok with these deaths"? Never would it happen.

Following such an incident the gun control discussion swings wide, casting a a net of collective guilt and shame. It not only diminishes the dead but strengthens those who are already not predisposed to supporting gun control. It also poisons the well when the legislation is brought forth. Gun owners tend to be politically aware and have long memories. Any urge to compromise will be lessened upon recalling than the person proposing the legislation had previously conflated them with a mass murderer.

So how to talk gun control after such a tragedy?

First keep perspective. Despite the hyperbole and coverage this is the rare event. That is why it gets the coverage. Keep in mind that better background checks, safe storage laws and keeping guns out of the hands of those with violent histories including domestic abusers will have the greatest effect overall.

Second, though rare we should not simply dismiss mass shootings. To create any policy to reduce them, we do need information. The history of the shooter, mental state, how the weapons were acquired and so on. That information may be used to make adjustments to the previous policies by pointing out possible warning flags of someone trying to obtain a gun but the root causes will often lie outside of guns. They will also be much more difficult to address but it is necessary if we don't want to simply change the cause of mass murder from guns to fire or bombs.

[DanTex]

63. Really? So gun control laws are now the equivalent of "anti-white laws"?

That's really the example you came up with? Not, say hate crimes laws. Or general awareness for massive racial problems we face in this country? No, "anti-white laws". Seriously...

Yes, racists can kill people with other things besides guns. Also, gun massacres can be committed by people who are not racist. This just happens to be an incident in which racism and guns both play a role. Racism and gun violence are rampant in our society, and things need to be done to fight both of them. And we're not close to where we need to be on either account.

And by the way, gun violence is not a rare event. There are 10,000 gun murders every year. In the same way that racism and hate crimes are not rare. Not all acts of gun violence or racism make it to the front pages, but when something as horrific as this happens, then they do. And it's entirely appropriate to talk about it.

I urge you to write a similar OP telling people how to talk about racism after a tragedy like this. Make sure that you point out that the best thing to do is remain calm, don't engage in wild hyperbole, remember that this is just one isolated act, and don't get crazy trying to say that there's a massive problem with racism across the country. See how that goes.

[sarisataka]

64. We have hate crime laws

terrorism laws. I would like to see both used in this case.

I used a ridiculous example to make a point. Using a tragedy to promote extreme laws is ludicrous...

I didn't say gun violence was rare, I said mass shootings are. What I proposed would help cut that 10,000 +/- number more than draconian attempts to control the law abiding.

[DanTex]

66. Your personal opinion is that gun control laws in the rest of the civilized world are

"extreme" and "draconian." This is not the opinion shared by most liberals. It is actually an opinion that basically only exists among American conservatives.

And, by the way, there are also people who think that hate crimes laws are "extreme" and "draconian". And they thing that racism is not really a big deal and we just need to make a few minor adjustments. That opinion is also not shared by most liberals.

And I'm sure these people would be just as upset as you are that people are "exploiting" this tragedy to call for some kind of major reevaluation of racism in our society. Because, you know, just business as usual, don't rock the boat just because a bunch of people were murdered. Stay the course.

Just replace "guns" with "racism" in your last few posts, and see how they read.

[sarisataka]

67. Many of the laws in other countries are

extreme. Yet in this country gun control proponents freak out at the mention of legalizing silencers, yet in European countries they are often legal or even required for hunting. So I guess "extreme" is a matter of perspective.

The rest of your post is pretty much opinion so I will leave you to your opinions; I have no illusions about being able to change them.

Considering that I am the unusual combination of liberal, gun owner and favor gun control you should consider myself a potential ally of convenience rather than try and convince me I am conservative (and maybe racist).
Luckily for you-
a) my liberalism is based on decades of education and life experience and is very well grounded

b) I don't care what you, or anyone, thinks of gun ownership. I have used guns in peace and war, know intimately what they can do and who is ultimately responsible for that bullet

c) the combination of the above has given me insight into what I see as "common sense" gun control. While I will read the propaganda of alphabet organizations for and against, it takes a lot to get past my "BS meter". I check sources and then check their sources. My "common sense" ideas are the ones having successes (as the prior referenced Domestic Violence Firearm Law) so I believe I am on the right track with mainstream opinion. There are more laws I would like to see enacted, and a few struck from the books, but I also realize the wheels of change move slow. The polarity of the issue only slows it further but I will keep applying pressure in my own little way.

[DanTex]

68. "Extreme" according to you. From the perspective of the world, the laws are sensible

and valuable in that they prevent other countries from descending to the levels of gun violence we have here. It's like conservatives arguing that universal healthcare is "communist" even though it works much better than the US system in basically everywhere it's been tried.

And, actually, silencers are legal, they are just NFA regulated. And I'm fine with that. Stick handguns and semi-auto rifles in the NFA and we'd be in business. You can have them, but they are registered, and you need to go through an extensive background check with fingerprints and the whole works. You think that this kid's father would have bought him a handgun when he turned 21 if we had those laws in place? Do you even think the kid could have passed the NFA background check?

In fact, handguns almost were part of NFA, and if they had been, probably a million or so American lives would have been saved by now.

I am not trying to convince you that you are either conservative or racist. I am simply bringing to light the bizarre idea that we shouldn't talk about gun control in the aftermath of a massacre, something that makes as little sense as not wanting to talk about hate crimes laws in the aftermath of a hate crime.

[sarisataka]

72. To hunters in England

Our silencer laws would be "extreme". To get one you simply have the police stamp your firearms card- nearly guaranteed approval

yes that's Princess Kate

In France and Finland they are mandatory.

That little NFA requirement will cost about $300 in permit and transfer fees, has a very involved permit process and could take up to a year. That sort of limits access to a rather select group of people don't you think?

Registration would be a wonderful idea. Unfortunately with all of the past attempts at bans and confiscation

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein; Associated Press November 18, 1993

, the history of gun control groups

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
--Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976

it will take quite a bit to get me to support registration again. (At one time I was in favor of it) It will take far longer to get the support to see it enacted.

[DanTex]

73. I don't see the problem with the NFA idea. $300 is what a decent gun costs to begin with,

a gun isn't a cheap purchase. It should be something people take seriously, not just buy for their kid when they turn 21 because they think it's a manly thing to do.

I also don't see how the fact that some people want to use registration as a first step towards an outright ban is an argument against registration, just like the fact that some people want to use ACA as a first step towards single payer is not an argument against ACA and instead letting millions of people suffer without health insurance.

[sarisataka]

74. We are getting closer in agreement

I don't believe in giving guns as gifts until a person is well trained in handling and wants a gun. Also the mental stability of the recipient is a huge factor.

I am holding a few guns in trust for my children from their grandfather's estate. For now they keep their Airsoft guns locked in the safe with my guns and must go through me to get access to them. They do not have the combination.

It would shame his memory if I were to pass on the guns without properly preparing them for the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.

The issue of registration should not be an issue but it is. The California confiscation of SKS rifles is well remembered. I don't know if even one rifle was taken but since the idea was connected to a registration list it taints every registration proposal. That and the irresponsible publishing of gun owner lists in certain newspapers shows other ways registration can be abused.

Still much can be done without registration until trust is built where the subject can be discussed with some optimism. One thing I agree with gun control group proposals is that they don't have to be perfect and stop every incident. My only corollary is it must be show how they can do more good than harm.

[romanic]

50. YW.

I'm glad the domestic terrorist was caught, now the families of the victims can mourn without fearing the madman that took their lives is out on the prowl.

[sarisataka]

54. He needs to be prosecuted

under both hate crimes and as a terrorist. In addition his father, the apparent supplier of the gun used, needs to be investigated as a possible conspirator/accomplice.

Hopefully the quick capture will give the families at least a tiny iota of peace in their mourning

[NM_Birder]

41. more laws, ......... thats the answer to stopping crime.

it's worked so well with drugs hasn't it ? Shit you can hardly even FIND drugs anymore they are so illegal right ?

pretending that making it more difficult for law abiding gun owners, will somehow eliminate the criminal intent of some is not going to fly,........ ever.......... regardless how many times it's flown like a flag the day after a tragic rampage.

You cannot legislate psychopaths, nor racist murders into sanity ........... by stripping the rights of law abiding citizens.

[DanTex]

43. It's not the number of laws, it's their content.

I'm not sure if the number of laws in Canada, the UK, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc is more than the number of gun laws in the US.

But they are much stronger, and much more effective, as evidenced by the drastic difference in levels of gun violence between us and every other first-world nation in the world.

[NM_Birder]

75. the murder rates of other countries is irrelevant to the situation here.

but it does make for nice talking points.
Strict gun controls will not prevent a mentally unstable, psychopath, or determined individual from killing people.

Realistically...... health care and trade policy will go much farther than gun controls.

The ACA could have been a life preserver for the mentality unstable, you will see better results in mass shooting prevention by getting the mentality unstable help and/or off the streets than regulating firearms. But that ain't gonna happen, cause the ACA has nothing to do with anything but insurance payment policy.

Unraveling the unfair trade policy we hold so dear, would bring good jobs home. THAT would go a long way to help prevent mental instability, stress, desperation, AND reduce the hopelessness people suffer that might push them over the edge.

Mass shooting are perpetrated by 1) the mentally unstable or 2) terrorists......... Neither will be swayed by gun legislation. same way fucking drunk drivers don't care two rats ass about the law. Shit, I'd wager half the people that rally against firearms, will or have driven drunk in the last 2weeks, they just didn't get caught so they assume they weren't over the limit..

Change the condition, or just keep being shocked when a psycho nut bag murders a bunch of people. To believe you can legislate sanity, or even more unrealistic..... remove firearms altogether is extremely ignorant to the reality of who is really perpetrating firearm violence.

I don't care what Obama had to say about "other advanced" countries,.................. he is like everyone else, using this latest massacre as a smoke screen to keep other things off the front pages.

Solve the problem...... The problem IS NOT LAW ABIDING firearm enthusiasts,....... and psychos and terrorists don't follow the law anyway.

[whatchamacallit]

48. I support strong gun control

and I think it will help take the easy immediacy out of killing, but I don't believe it will end violent attacks on PoC. We have some major reformatting to do in this country.

[Vinca]

55. Apparently this particular psychopath recently got his gun as a birthday present.

And now we're going through the ritual. The tears. The outrage. The talking heads 24/7 chatter. Blah, blah, blah. But nothing happens. I gave up on this country and guns after Sandy Hook. If the slaughter of those babies didn't wake people up, a handful of black people shot in a church certainly won't. Sometimes I really hate this country.

[NCTraveler]

65. A point that is all too often overlooked.

In the example here it is blatant racist behavior. But what about all of the AA's shooting AA's in many big cities. It is occurring so often that it is horrifying. We yell from the rooftops when something like the church killing happen, but seem not to talk about all of the AA on AA shootings. I'm not sure if it's because every racist white person uses it as their reason to oppose gun control or the topic is too horrifying itself. The damn near daily killing of AA men by AA men has come to be because of the systemic and inherent racism built into government and society. Our streets are flooded with guns. One group is oppressed economically by a system that works against them, and we then act as if the shootings aren't wholly based in the systemic racism over the last century. I clearly don't mean all when I say "we then act."


This killing is no more based in racism than the constant killings of young men all across this country. That needs to be openly talked about more in my opinion. Gun control needs to be encompassing. With the election of Obama, and the promotion of fear by the NRA, millions more guns are illegally making their way to the streets; resulting in more AA deaths.

This conversation needs to be had every day of the year. Many do just that. Those opposed to sensible gun legislation need to be called what they are. Supporters of the daily killing of AA men. That is the end result of putting as many guns in public as possible while oppressing individual groups.

It seems we talk about it when it is more blatant. But when it comes to the system itself and the racism built in that is leaving black men dead at an alarming rate, we don't say too much. It takes deeper thought and isn't as in your face as this. That is because the system has us where they want us. Segregated.

[uponit7771]

70. The AA on AA shootings are no worse than white on white or Native American on Native American

... the media focus's and concentrates on blacks because we're an easier target to criminalize.

FBI numbers in regards to black on black killings are similar to other races

[NCTraveler]

71. Do you have a link? TIA.

Although, to think the segregation of society, and the flooding of guns onto the streets, isn't based in an inherently racist system; would be wrong.

"Black Americans are more than twice as likely to die from gun violence than whites, according to a new study that surveyed more than a decades' worth of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Between 2000 and 2010, the death rate due to firearm-related injuries was more than 18.5 per 100,000 among blacks, but only nine per 100,000 among whites. For Hispanics, it was just over seven per 100,000, and for all other races it was just below 3.5 per 100,000."

"In Washington D.C., for instance, the death rate associated with firearms is more than thirteen and a half times for African Americans what it is for whites."

"No state has as wide a gap as New Jersey, where black people are four and a half times as likely to die from gun violence than whites. In Illinois, the state with the second largest divide, African Americans are roughly four and a quarter times as likely; in Massachusetts, the third most divided, black people are just over four times as likely; and in Michigan, the fourth most divided, black people are just under four times as likely."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/19/the-racial-divide-in-americas-gun-deaths/

[hack89]

76. Here is the FBI breakdown on murders in 2012 by race

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_3_murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2012.xls

[uponit7771]

77. Yes, links inside..

Speaking of overall crime rates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/25/giulianis-claim-that-93-percent-of-blacks-are-killed-by-other-blacks/

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/03/03/9-facts-white-white-crime-far-exceeds-black-black-crime-media-conceals/

[NCTraveler]

78. Your links back up my post.

Not sure why so many want to hide the racial aspect.

[uponit7771]

79. Black on black murder is not relatively noteworthy but is made of note in your post, it's not a ...

... or a delineation statistically from any other race when it comes to crime.

There are some years when white on white murders are higher than others IINM