I guess we should be lucky a gun is the only means to commit mass murder.

Guns aren't the problem here!

I'll reiterate what I said about Sandy Hook and leave it at this: There is no way some angsty little twink is gonna take out a roomful of adults or a school full of kids and teachers with their bare hands. Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof are not Liam Neeson in Taken. They do it with a gun.

Edited June 18, 201510 yr by Vee

I saw the statement from the mayor that its "unfathomable" that someone would walk into a place of worship and kill people. Except it isn't. We live in a country where people have no problem shooting in a house of worship or an elementary school or a movie theatre. It's time for people to stop being surprised when this happens and start being pissed.

I went through a range of emotions today and yes, anger was one of them. I'm appalled at the lunatics who believe the answer is for Reverends and ushers to start carrying guns. The U.S. is the only 'developed' country on earth that has this awful level of gun deaths and violence. The answer is clearly NOT more guns.

To see the faces of those poor people, ugh, just made the sadness even worse but I felt obligated to look at their faces and read about their lives out of respect for the fact that they were here and they mattered as human beings. I feel such sadness for the memory of them, how they were taken away and for their families who must now grieve at the loss.

I just wish Obama had gotten enough backing to do what he wanted to do about gun control after Sandy Hook. That's still the third rail for a lot of weak politicians in difficult states.

Me too but many of the politicians remain in the back pockets of the NRA and the gun lobby.

Exactly. It is not only not unfathomable, it is the epitome of fathomable sadly. Until the country gets over its fetish for guns, these things will continue to happen. If the school kids in CT wasn't enough to wake the country up then this won't be either. Soon we will hear calls for secret Church Marshalls packing heat.

I don't know what it will take for people to finally become so disgusted that they push a sensibile gun control solution. Clearly dead 1st graders were not enough. It's enough to make you hold your head heavy.

This really needs to be handled on a federal level!

Yes. This man needs to be handled like any other terrorist. He sat in that church for an hour and proceeded to spout off political ideology before killing men, women, elderly and shooting at children as well. If that doesn't define him as a terrorist, I don't know what is a terrorist then.

May the Lord be with the victims and their loved ones and help the entire community find peace and strength out of this truly senseless tragedy.

Yes and may God help this country at the rate things are going.

I guess we should be lucky a gun is the only means to commit mass murder.

Guns aren't the problem here!

Tell that to the shooting victims.

The gun wasn't the problem here. The psycho who had the gun was the problem here.

This makes me feel sick.

Edited June 18, 201510 yr by katie_9918

...

Edited June 18, 201510 yr by ChitHappens

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/18/charleston-shooter-black-women-white-women-rape

When there is a culture of violence, guns are a problem, because they perpetuate the problem. No, a gun can't kill on it's own, but it's doubtful that this psycho would have even attempted this if he didn't have fire power. He shot up a bunch of people and ran away, which is the act of a psychotic coward.

The problem really is the culture of violence. Like the President said, we have to really wonder why this sort of thing is so prevalent in our country.

I'm against the death penalty because I think it is flawed public policy but the more I learn about the victims the more I can honestly say that I could snap this punk's neck with my bare hands. Every person in that church was worth a hundred of this lowlife. Every single one.

I hated Michael Ian Black back in his VH1 days, but he came for these morons on Twitter today.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/comedian-michael-ian-black-destroys-twitter-conservatives-who-deny-charleston-shooting-suspect-is-white/comments/#disqus

I just can't get over that statement. “None of this story adds up. Even if a ‘white supremacist,’ their targets/hatred isn’t usually church-going African-Americans.”

Is this bitch serious?!

So I wonder if this guy is going to be treated for what he is, a TERRORIST or will he get the "he has mental problems" excuse. Not that I don't think there are lots of people out there who have serious mental problems but I am damn tired of this term being used when it's a white guy shooting people up. When someone black does it(and I can't even remember when) they need to be controlled and killed when Muslims do it they are deemed "terrorists" so why aren't the white guys. It brings to memory Timothy McVay and how before it was known a white man was responsible for Oklahoma City people were blaming Muslim terrorists.

Why is it that a terrorist action in this country is defined based on race not on the actions of the perpetrator?

And I agree with the president. I am so sick and tired of the lame excuse guns don't kill. The United States is the ONLY country in the western world with this kind of gun violence. If guns are not the problem, someone needs to explain to me what is? Oh right, we have more people with "mental problems" than any other country. (insert eye roll)

So I wonder if this guy is going to be treated for what he is, a TERRORIST or will he get the "he has mental problems" excuse. Not that I don't think there are lots of people out there who have serious mental problems but I am damn tired of this term being used when it's a white guy shooting people up. When someone black does it(and I can't even remember when) they need to be controlled and killed when Muslims do it they are deemed "terrorists" so why aren't the white guys. It brings to memory Timothy McVay and how before it was known a white man was responsible for Oklahoma City people were blaming Muslim terrorists.

Why is it that a terrorist action in this country is defined based on race not on the actions of the perpetrator?

And I agree with the president. I am so sick and tired of the lame excuse guns don't kill. The United States is the ONLY country in the western world with this kind of gun violence. If guns are not the problem, someone needs to explain to me what is? Oh right, we have more people with "mental problems" than any other country. (insert eye roll)

No, but I do think we have a pretty violent culture. Than you add guns, which are the easiest way to commit mass murder and there you go.

I think McVay is widely considered a terrorist. I saw the Wapost article on the way different races are considered either terrorists or mentally ill. I think it's all pretty complicated. I don't see this guy as a terrorist. I see this more as a mini genocide. Muslim terrorists have a clear agenda, which is getting Americans to stay out of the affairs of the Muslim world and to especially stop supporting Israel.

This guys agenda was simply killing people of a race he doesn't like. Not the same thing at all, imo. He wasn't trying to scare society into following his political beliefs. Plus, the mentally ill are generally reviled in this country and jailed instead of helped, so I'm not sure it matters that much how we classify people. They are all headed to the same place, which is either death or life in prison.

The gun wasn't the problem here. The psycho who had the gun was the problem here.

This makes me feel sick.

But if he didn't have a gun he would not have been able to kill people with a gun. This is like saying since people have an ability to kill we might as well let them have every ability to kill. Why not let him be stuck with a knife as his only option and let him take his chances in that church? He might have gotten one or two, but he certainly wouldn't have gotten nine. This intentionally naive pie in the sky innocence "gun? what gun? I don't see any gun here causing a problem" is what lets one disturbed kid after another grab a gun and kill people. How about we say "we know Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors, but kooks can only have access to 30".

Why gun advocates say "How can we make it easier for killers to be most effective and quick whilst on sprees?" is beyond me. I'd rather force them to have to average one murder every minute vs 1 ever other second. Your way everyone gets killed. My way the first two get killed and then the guy gets tackled. Your way washes society's hands and absolves itself of all guilt as it peddles more and more guns turning the country into the OK Corral. So far your way has only managed to get people killed. Why not try another way even as a social experiment? The worst that can happen is an equal amount of people get killed but the upside is even one of these sprees gets avoided.

I'll say it every time these things happen: as long as the country insists everyone has a right to a gun, then the country has no one to blame but itself when people use those guns. As they say in church, so as you sow, so shall you reap.

I guess we should be lucky a gun is the only means to commit mass murder.

Guns aren't the problem here!

Quoted for absolute truth, whether it was meant for truth or not.

Edited June 19, 201510 yr by katie_9918

But if he didn't have a gun he would not have been able to kill people with a gun. This is like saying since people have an ability to kill we might as well let them have every ability to kill. Why not let him be stuck with a knife as his only option and let him take his chances in that church? He might have gotten one or two, but he certainly wouldn't have gotten nine. This intentionally naive pie in the sky innocence "gun? what gun? I don't see any gun here causing a problem" is what lets one disturbed kid after another grab a gun and kill people. How about we say "we know Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors, but kooks can only have access to 30".

Why gun advocates say "How can we make it easier for killers to be most effective and quick whilst on sprees?" is beyond me. I'd rather force them to have to average one murder every minute vs 1 ever other second. Your way everyone gets killed. My way the first two get killed and then the guy gets tackled. Your way washes society's hands and absolves itself of all guilt as it peddles more and more guns turning the country into the OK Corral. So far your way has only managed to get people killed. Why not try another way even as a social experiment? The worst that can happen is an equal amount of people get killed but the upside is even one of these sprees gets avoided.

I'll say it every time these things happen: as long as the country insists everyone has a right to a gun, then the country has no one to blame but itself when people use those guns. As they say in church, so as you sow, so shall you reap.

I totally agree with you. If he had to try to make a bomb there would have been a much better chance he would have blown himself up or been caught by the feds. Even with a knife, you have to get some blood on your hands and he never would have got 9 people. Any coward can pull a trigger. Still, after Sandy Hook, it became clear to me that we aren't going to change any time soon. We can't even get decent background check laws passed. America is the wild west and it's going to stay that way.