“We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” Obama said in the White House briefing room, Vice President Joe Biden standing at his side.
So we don’t know all of the facts, but we can conclude that the cause was easy access to guns? The bodies weren’t even cold yet.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense because the gun lobby is above politics
The gun was legally purchased and was reloaded multiple times .
The President has been in this situation a number of times , trying to make sense out of senseless violence .
I’m sorry if gun enthusiasts are sensitive to these events
The innocent never get a vote on guns .
The lobbyists for the gun lobby take care of that for them
What you always forget Mark is the fact that the gun didn’t walk in and shoot these people. A mentally deranged individual did and he will access a weapon one way or the other if his intent is to kill. Trying fixing societies mental health issues if your looking for a solution.
I have no interest in getting ride of the Second Amendment but for Gods sakes some regulation is in order. Well stricter gun laws may not have changed the circumstances surrounding this situation they would be worth it if they changed even one instance of gun violence. As a gun owner, I have no problem registering, insuring and taking gun safety courses. Maybe a owners license, mandatory insurance, mandatory gun safe and continuing gun safety/education are in order. This guys uncle bought him the .45 for his birthday. Maybe we shouldn’t have the unregulated second party transfer of firearms. Maybe the sale and transfer should happen by a regulated firearms dealer. The argument that these types of people without a gun would find a way to kill anyway is bullshit. I have a fighting chance against any person wielding any other weapon. Even more of a chance when I’m with others. If it turns out this guy had a history of crazy behavior then the uncle who gave him the gun should be held accountable. For all you racism deniers I guess your theory is full of holes. I don blame Obama one bit for speaking out, anyone who doesn’t is a pure asshole.
IF the media reports are accurate about his uncle (or father, or ???)giving him the gun, the gift violated federal law.
IF the media reports are accurate about him having purchased the gun himself, whoever sold it to him violated federal law.
It’s not clear yet how he obtained that gun, but it sure sounds like someone broke a law that has a serious penalty.
The level of gun violence in America is shameful. No one even comes close. Lots of people feel that we should be trying to do something about it.
In 1996 Australia had a 35-person mass shooting. They did something about it. It worked.
Who says he was mentally Ill?
He was a racist and a premeditated murderer but mentally ill?
W/0 his gun , the folks aren’t dead so his gun is sorta important to the story
I’m all for curing mental illness and its begins with the need for anyone other than the police to have these kinds of weapons .
You don’t need these to hunt- just kill people rapidly !
Crazy as in reckless but there is definitely something wrong with this guys head. No sane person you do such a thing. Mental with hate and ignorance.
No sane person would do such a thing? “Such a thing” has happened before. Were all the perpetrators insane?
No that’s not what I meant. Just saying from a NON clinical perspective the guy is f$&@!&$ nuts. “Normal” thinking was replaced with ignorance and hate.
Who among us can look at the level of gun violence in America–mass murders and just day to day shootings–and say that there’s nothing we can do? I call bullshit. We can do better. Whatever your idea is, I know I’m ready to hear it. Other countries seem to have solved this problem. We can, too.
could the killer have knifed all 9 people ?
Or bludgeoned them all with a hammer ?
No, the job gets done the right way with an automatic weapon .
The insanity is the American publics love affair with guns and the perversion is 100% defense of automatic weapons under any circumstances
Mark Maley says: “No, the job gets done the right way with an automatic weapon.”
Except that it did not. One item that is uniform from news reports is that the firearm was a .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol. All semiautomatics fire once each time the trigger is pulled — just like every other firearm that is not an automatic firearm. An “automatic weapon” fires multiple times each time the trigger is pulled. If he did use an automatic firearm, it would be extremely unusual.
CNN is reporting that he used a Glock semiautomatic pistol that has a 13-round magazine. Most revolvers hold 6 rounds. If he’d been using a revolver, he could have shot just as fast, but he would have needed to reload more often. Another uniform item from news reports is that he reloaded several times, so this seems unlikely to have mattered.
Some firearms hold only one or two shots.
He reloaded extra times to add lead to their already limp bodies. Furthermore, this idiot was an addict with a pending drug charge but was still able to purchase a gun. I guess it wasn’t his uncle that purchased the gun. His father gave him money, supposedly hesitantly, to purchase the gun. No matter the specifics further regulations are needed. Most law abiding gun owners wouldn’t mind doing more or following more structured regulations to assure these tragedies are averted. Anyone not willing to speak out or support (60% of citizens do) stricter regs is a pure asshole. Enough is enough. One shot was one to many for this moron to have.
Jadedly Unbiased — you don’t even know for sure what happened yet, but you’re sure more laws could have prevented it? And anyone who does not agree is “a pure asshole”?
scott says: “Some firearms hold only one or two shots.”
And your point is?
CNN has now reported that “One key part of this horrific scheme — the weapon — came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given “birthday money” and that the family didn’t know what Roof did with it.”
Root purchased the gun in April. Therefore no waiting period being called for by gun control groups would have prevented this.
A background check was required for this purchase. Therefore, the expanded background checks that have been called for would not have prevented this.
And yet, Australia passed some stricter gun laws and it’s really made a huge difference. Why would it not be so for us?
“Why would it not be so for us?”
What does the Australian Constitution say about the right of the people of Australia to bear arms?
I find a striking similarity in the places where people are massacred by sick people with guns: They are all “gun-free zones” (except, of course, the streets of Milwaukee where there is no law).
And I find a striking similarity between the countries where such atrocities are extremely rare: they all have more gun restrictions than we do.
Don’t know what the Australian constitution says. I know what ours says. And I know the SCOTUS clearly believes it allows for limits on the freedom it describes. Is there nothing more we can do in light of the extreme level of violence in America?
I know as much as you do. I know that this individual had a pending drug charge, open court case and shouldn’t have been able to purchase a gun. More comprehensive regs are needed. The ones in place failed. It’s amazing that the vast and I do mean vast majority of citizens in this country support gun law reform. Our politicians are more concerned with satisfying the gun lobby then representing the will of the people.
Jadedly Unbiased — Just what “More comprehensive regs” do you want? Are there reasonable changes that could be made? Maybe, but I’d like to hear exactly what you think is needed. No vague generalities, please.
“It’s amazing that the vast and I do mean vast majority of citizens in this country support gun law reform.”
I’d use the word “incredible” (as in literally not credible) given recent polling results.
A recent Pew poll showed that “For the first time in more than two decades, a higher percentage (52%) said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than to control gun ownership (46%).”
“According to a March 2013 CNN/ORC poll, 55 percent of Americans thought there, ‘should be only minor or no restrictions at all on owning guns.'”
Controlling gun ownership or restricting gun ownership are completely different then regulating the sale of guns or having laws to ensure responsible gun ownership. I made no mention of restrictions or controls on owners. I did give some examples above (June 19 @ 10: 37am).
I’m sorry, I forgot about your earlier post. Let’s see…
1) Owners license — sorry, I won’t go along with this one. When you need a license to exercise a right, it’s no longer a right.
2) Mandatory insurance — while insurance is a good idea, I don’t like making it mandatory. What about people who cannot afford the insurance? Do they not have a right to keep and bear arms?
3) Mandatory gun safe — I have a safe because I do not want mine stolen. Guns are not the only things I keep in a safe. What about someone who owns one firearm for self-defense that is always on her person? Does she also have to purchase a gun safe even though it is always empty? Sounds like nothing more than another barrier to those who are poor.
4) Continuing gun safety/education — It’s not a bad idea to keep practicing, but what about the poor? Are they not allowed to own firearms?
5) This guys uncle bought him the .45 for his birthday. (Actually, this now appears to be untrue.) Maybe we shouldn’t have the unregulated second party transfer of firearms. Second party transfers are NOT unregulated. As I pointed out above, if this had happened, someone would be looking forward to a stay in prison.
6) Maybe the sale and transfer should happen by a regulated firearms dealer. This ends up amounting to another tax on those purchasing guns.
So which of them would have worked in this case? Number 1 is unlikely to pass muster with SCOTUS given that it held that ownership is a right protected by the constitution. Numbers 5 and 6 don’t apply as it wasn’t a private sale (if we believe the latest news reports). The rest of your proposals amount to nothing more than making gun ownership more expensive. Is that really going to make that much difference?
1) How would a license infringe on second amendment rights. You can still own a gun. A license could be used as the verification that you went through gun safety, have concealed carry permit, lists guns owed by licensee, etc.. This wouldn’t be used to take away rights but to help insure today’s militia is “well regulated”.
2) You have a good point. Maybe build insurance into the price of purchase (short term policy). Build uninsured gun owners insurance into legitimate owner policies. Similar to uninsured motorist. I don’t have all the answers but it should be something to consider.
3) Just another idea. “She” can’t always be in control of her firearm. “She” has to sleep at some point. Fingerprint lock box next to the bed would work. Obviously, this is a good faith measure and would be impossible to enforce. However, if for some reason police discover failure to secure gun tickets would be in order. Gun manufactures could throw lock boxes into sale for a minimal cost when bought in bulk.
4) What about the poor, what about the poor. Now conservatives are worried about the poor. If you can’t afford a gun or the requirements that go along with being “well regulated” then bring a pitch fork to the war as the poor did during the revolution. This cost could be shared by owners, sellers, manufacturers and insurers. Proactive and preventive. Would save lives and money. We already know gun safety/hunters safety works.
5) Who regulates when I purchase a gun from my neighbor? 40% of all gun sales in the U.S. are private and unregulated.
6) Like a notary. Verify the identities and residence. Verify they have complied with background checks etc.
Basically, what you advocate is an “unregulated militia”. Oh wait, that’s right militia has been removed but the REGULATED remains.
In my first statement above I admit that stricter laws may not have changed the circumstances of this incident. However, we now no that the system failed. Enhanced and stricter laws would have made a difference and if it would save even one life in the future it would be worth every penny… even pennies from the poor. I reassert,anyone unwilling to speak out and support reform is a pure asshole. Oh and by the way… Take down that stupid fucking flag!
That was a lot of work to say that there can be no changes to existing gun laws .
I understand the passion I guess but when I think of the murderd as collateral damage to allow you and your brothers and sisters to retain the right to have guns meant 100% to kill as many people as possible as quick as possible, it’s time to cut back on your rights and keep more good folks on the planet
Nothing personal .
Regarding the confederate flag, anyone defending it as culture need to read Jefferson Davis remarks about what that culture was built on and what the South bitterly defended the forced labor of other human beings .
Our governor is a coward for saying the issue is up to the states and Mitt Romney is a hero for saying that flag belongs in a museum .
The South could have been treated as the secessionist traitors they were .
That we took them back as civilly as we did doesn’t mean they should fly that flag
Anywhere on a states official grounds
And BTW – I can’t wait for Texas to secede
So all of the folks who want to make Wisconsin into Texas north has a country they can move to and be proud of
And we can go back to liberal idea’s like quality public education without bailing out religious schools , unimpeded voting rights
and reasonable gun laws .
Jadedly Unbiased — I
1) “How would a license infringe on second amendment rights.” I am unaware of a licensing requirement for the exercise of any other constitutionally-protected right — especially those protected by the bill of rights. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
2) Insurance built into the price of a gun just raises the price. It’s not going to prevent someone from committing mass murder.
3) Lock boxes built into the price of a gun just raises the price. Buying in bulk does not mean free. I also think you put WAY too much faith in the security of any reasonably-priced safe or lock box.
4) “What about the poor, what about the poor. Now conservatives are worried about the poor.” You suffer from the misapprehension that I am a conservative. I am not and never have been.
5a) “Who regulates when I purchase a gun from my neighbor?” Such purchases are regulated by the fact that you will go to prison if you sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to a prohibited person and are caught. And such prosecutions do happen.
My experience is that it has become much harder to purchase a firearm from a private party than it was back when I purchased my first firearm. ‘Course, back then I could buy a firearm from a dealer with no background check and no waiting period.
5b) “40% of all gun sales in the U.S. are private and unregulated.” That statistic is complete and utter bull. You would know this if you bothered to investigate instead of just parroting talking points. It’s no where near the problem that it is built up to be. Go investigate it yourself, you seem unlikely to believe any sources I provide.
6) “Like a notary. Verify the identities and residence. Verify they have complied with background checks etc.” I can generally get something notarized for free. I doubt the government is going to run my background check for free.
And as I said, NONE of your proposals would have stopped this evil from occurring.
“Basically, what you advocate is an ‘unregulated militia’”.
Nope. What I advocate is a “well-regulated militia” as called for as the purpose for protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. The words “well-regulated” do not mean what you think they mean. The meaning is closer to “well-disciplined, well-trained, and well-equipped”. It’s describing a militia that is capable of fulfilling it’s purpose. Consider similar phrases like “a well-regulated clock” or “a well-regulated shotgun”. The first is a clock that keeps accurate time, while the second is a shotgun that shoots to where it is aimed.
“Oh wait, that’s right militia has been removed but the REGULATED remains.” I have NO idea what you mean by this.
“In my first statement above I admit that stricter laws may not have changed the circumstances of this incident. However, we now no that the system failed. Enhanced and stricter laws would have made a difference and if it would save even one life in the future it would be worth every penny… even pennies from the poor.”
So when a crime is committed, we should pass a bunch of laws that would not have prevented the crime? Just because they *might* prevent some other crime? I would hate to live in a society governed by people using that theory.
“I reassert,anyone unwilling to speak out and support reform is a pure asshole. Oh and by the way… Take down that stupid fucking flag!”
If my positions make you believe me to be “a pure asshole.” So be it. I accept your hatred. Nay, I revel in it! Oh, and by the way, I don’t own one of those flags. I, and my mixed-race family, much prefer the Stars and Stripes.
As for changes that might actually do some good without violating the rights of innocents, consider this — you’ve actually managed to come close to it a couple of times. Why not find out why the background check failed to deny Dylan Roof’s purchase because of his felony charge and fix the problem? Contrary to what some have said, that was not a lawful purchase. The truth is that the background check system failed at something that should have been easy to find.
You have attempted to discredit what are merely ideas. If I had the answers to preventing mass murder I’d have an office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. No matter how flawed my ideas are the reality is stricter regulations are needed. You can disagree with the ideas, the numbers or the laws but the fact remains the vast majority of the population supports gun law reform. Yes, stricter laws would have prevented this act because the current laws failed. Your ignorance shines through in your answers. Wait… you don’t actually give an answers, solutions or offer ideas. Just knock those of others.
1) So, how would a license infringe on second amendment rights?
2) Compensation for victims family. You do understand that’s what insurance is for. Car insurance doesn’t prevent the accident either but it’s required. I know, I know driving is a privilege not a right. It’s just an example.
3) Required safes and lock boxes work in other countries and are enforced.
4) I give two shits about your political affiliation. From what you have stated its clear you are in the pin head party. I also don’t give a shit that you have a mixed family. It gives you no more credibility on this subject then anyone else nor does it have any bearing.
5a) You should look up the definition of regulated. One neighbor selling to another should be more then a black market deal in a garage. You prove this point for me by assuming the neighbor has any way of knowing the other is a “prohibited person”. No background check. Maybe you’ll just ask.
5b) I actually used the lowest number I could find anticipating your bullshit. So my number stands and is by all credible sources even higher. Check your numbers or use a source other then the NRA.
6) You may care about the cost but I don’t. If you can’t afford the costs of being a responsible gun owner, then get out your pitch fork and organize your neighbors to become the well regulated militia the amendment was meant for. I don’t need a lesson from the likes of you about what “well regulated militia” means. Sarcasm is apparently dead too.
Laws should have been passed years ago and not in reaction to these crimes. “So when a crime is committed, we should pass a bunch of laws that would not have prevented the crimes?” I hear that argument after every mass shooting. It’s weak. Since we have one of these every year or two we might as well jump in any time because it will always be considered reactive. My ideas may not have prevented this crime but to assume none would is irresponsible. The first duty our government has is to our safety. Our safety is continually breached. Change is necessary and will happen it’s only a matter of time. It’s not about this incident, it’s about all incidents. Many different angles to prevent many different gun crimes. You do know guns are used in more then mass shootings? People like you, pure assholes, will continue to be on the wrong side of history and deservingly so. Did I mention I’m a gun owner too. One that’s willing to comply with new laws that might, even if they just might, help prevent another mass shooting no matter the cost.
Jadedly Unbiased quoted me “So when a crime is committed, we should pass a bunch of laws that would not have prevented the crimes?” and then ridiculed the quote.
I prefer to enact laws that actually do more than make people feel good. Maybe some day you’ll decide to do the same.
I’m done in this thread.
Poor baby. I prefer to save lives with laws that count instead of standing behind the gun lobby only interested in profit. Human life matters more then your feelings, the gun lobby or the bullshit response you gave. “Stop pointing at the problem and start pointing at the solution”.