Charleston shooting

A Frustrated President Wants But Doesn't Expect New Gun Controls

Why the Charleston church massacre isn't likely to lead to stricter gun laws

|

When Barack Obama spoke today about last night's massacre in Charleston, he devoted a portion of his remarks to gun control:

I don't like the way "lame duck" sounds. How about "LDOTUS"?
C-Span

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. Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let's be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. And at some point it's going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.

If the president sounds pessimistic, it's because he knows chances are low that this crime will lead to new gun laws of the sort he'd like to see. But that isn't just because of "the politics in this town." If a recent pattern recurs, this story may end with less support for gun control altogether, not just in Washington but in the general public.

The pattern in question was identified last year by the legal scholar Josh Blackman and the political scientist Shelby Baird, who called it "the shooting cycle." As I wrote after their paper appeared, the process works like this:

A widely covered mass murder typically produces a period of "emotional capture," which frequently (though not always) includes greater public support for new gun controls. "Some who in the past moderately supported stricter gun laws now strongly support it," Blackman and Baird explain, "while some who in the past moderately opposed stricter gun laws will now moderately support them." This creates a window in which legislative action is more likely to succeed. But it's a small window: The period of emotional capture is followed by a regression to the mean, in part because many of those new supporters of gun laws "ask themselves if the purpose of these legislative moves was to stop the actual crime that occurred, or to advance a broader agenda they may not be comfortable with."

Looking at polling data from the last few shooting cycles, Blackman and Baird conclude that there isn't just a regression to the mean, but that "the mean is in fact declining. In other words, after each spike subsides, support for gun control is even lower than it was before the shooting." They don't think this pattern is inevitable, but for now, "Less support for gun control laws after tragedies is the normal reaction to mass shootings. Not the other way around."

This helps explain not just why new federal gun legislation failed to get traction after the Sandy Hook murders, but why state-level laws in the last year have been more likely to loosen than to tighten the rules for gun ownership.

I don't think it's difficult to guess whether South Carolina is more likely to make its gun laws looser or tighter.

Bonus links: On the broader issue of how common mass shootings are, you should read Grant Duwe's 2014 article for us on the subject. You may also want to look at my past blogging on the topic, such as the posts here, here, here, and here. For an interesting look at how violent America is in comparison to other OECD countries, check out Kieran Healy's graph here. (The short version: We're more violent than most of them, but we've also gotten a lot less violent over time.) Video of the president's remarks is embedded below the fold:

NEXT: Ignorance of the law is no excuse -- or is it?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This doesn’t happen in other advanced countries?! Are you fucking serious?

    1. Don’t you know how backward Norway is, dude?

      1. And France. Those places don’t even have indoor plumbing.

        1. To be specific in 2011 Norway with their draconian gun laws had 100 people killed in just 1 mass shooting. Given our population is 50 times that of Norway we would need 5000 people killed in mass shootings just to catch up.

          Assuming USAToday is right we had about 130 a year over 7 years which means it would take about 40 years for us to match the level of killing Norway pulled off in one year. Wake me up in 2055.

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/…..a/1937041/

          1. “To be specific in 2011 Norway with their draconian gun laws had 100 people killed in just 1 mass shooting.”

            In Norway such attacks are the exception, not the rule. In the case of the US such mass killings are far more frequent.

            “Assuming USAToday is right we had about 130 a year over 7 years which means it would take about 40 years for us to match the level of killing Norway pulled off in one year.”

            Why limit yourself to MASS murders?

            In 2008, Norway recorded 34 murders. That’s a murder rate of 0.69 people per 100,000 people. In contrast, the US had 16,465 people were killed through murder or non-negligent manslaughter. That’s a rate of 5.4 murders per 100,000 people.

            It also equates to a rate of over 45 murders PER DAY. Meaning you wouldn’t need to wait 40 years to catch with Norway’s anomalous mass murder. The US would match it in less than three days of ordinary daily murders.

            As for Norway’s 2008 rate of 34 murders for the entire year, the US would exceed that in just one day’s worth of carnage!

            Sources:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Norway
            http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or…..te#nat1970

            Plus I used the FBI stats at:

            https://www.fbi.gov

            1. you mistakenly credit Norway’s gun laws for their low gun violence rates,but that’s not the case. it’s their CULTURE that is different,their citizens are not as childish and out of touch with reality as are many US citizens. They don’t have the ethnic problems the US has,either,at least not until recently. (and that is causing a rise in their violence and crime)
              Norway could easily have a comparable mass murder rate as the US,the guns ARE present and available in their society,same as they are in Switzerland,also with a low gun violence rate. But their cultures and ethnic percentages are much different than the US.

      2. Norway is the socialist utopia that we should…oh, wait…damn.

      3. And Scotland.

      4. I don’t know for sure, but maybe this sort of thing does happen in the US. And maybe it is in some part to easier access to guns. I would sort of expect that to be true. If more people have guns, more crazy murderous fucks will too.
        But I don’t think you can consider that when considering if people should be allowed to exercise their right to self defense and arm themselves. That is such a fundamental right that you just have to accept the practical consequences if they exist.
        And of course, as everyone points out, this sort of thing does happen in other advanced countries. Seems like Europe as a whole probably has at least as many mass murders as the US.

        1. The larger point is even at 100 dead a year the risk of being killed in a mass shooting is almost nil. Almost as many die skiing every year but you obviously don’t hear calls to ban skis. This is great sensationalism but it really isn’t a serious problem if examined rationally.

          1. “The larger point is even at 100 dead a year the risk of being killed in a mass shooting is almost nil. Almost as many die skiing every year but you obviously don’t hear calls to ban skis.”

            You’re comparing applies and oranges. 100 people died IN A SINGLE INCIDENT. Imagine if a 100 skiers died IN A SINGLE INCIDENT. You don’t think there wouldn’t be calls to make the sport safer?

            But that’s not even the worst of it.

            You guys are cherrypicking the stats. MASS murder is merely the ugly tip of a rather large iceberg.

            In 2013 the FBI recorded 14,196 murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the US, most as isolated incidents. Imagine if that many people died in skiing accidents EACH year EVERY year. You don’t think there would NOT be moves to ban the sport of skiing?

          2. But, if it saves just one life, it’s worth it!

            /derp

        2. If more people have guns, more crazy murderous fucks will too…. That is the argument used to limit guns. Fixing the mental health system is a lot harder and more expensive than banning and/or restricting guns and ammunition.

        3. I don’t know for sure, but maybe this sort of thing does happen in the US.

          And when it does, it’s overwhelmingly in one of the limited “gun-free” zones created by gun control.

          As in this case, since South Carolina law prohibits licensed concealed carry in churches, unless the church has a specific policy allowing it.

    2. They get beheadings, so he is kind of right.

    3. Stupid statement by BHO but I think it modified it by the next sentence.

      1. The claim about frequency is even stupid though. Norway has 5 million people. That’s 1/62nd as many people as the United States. Anders Breivik therefore actually killed a higher percentage of Norway’s population in his shooting spree than the percentage of America’s population that died on 9/11.

        And these types of shootings have gotten more frequent in Europe as Europe has gotten more immigration because a) a lot of the people carrying out such shootings are Islamists and b) Anders Breivik was a racist scumbag whose shooting was carried out in REACTION to what he felt was the Islamization of his country.

        So a huge percentage of European shootings are directly related to their increasing Muslim populations and it’s very possible these sorts of mass shootings are therefore going to actually be much more common in Europe’s future, given that we’ve already had two such shootings in the first 6 months of this year in Copenhagen and France.

        That’s not even getting into the issue of attacks in Europe that are bombings rather than mass shootings. 7/7 killed 52 people and injured 700 and the bombing of a Spanish train back in 2004 killed 191 and wounded 1800. Given the number of fatalities we’re talking about, the gap between America and Europe in terms of your odds of dying in a mass killing is largely an illusion.

        1. And these types of shootings have gotten more frequent in Europe as Europe has gotten more immigration

          IMMIGRATION IS NEVER BAD LA LA LA IMMIGRATION IS NEVER BAD I CAN’T HEAR YOU

          1. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists.” President Trump.

            1. Trump is such an idiot, that he doesn’t even know that most of the Latin Americans coming into this country are not from Mexico.

        2. Frequency would refer to number of shooting events, so Breivik only counts as one incident.

          The point about bombings (and beheadings in the middle of the street in broad daylight) support the argument that bad people will find a way, but not really fair when talking narrowly about the prevalence of shooting events.

          1. Even if you’re counting incidents and not victims, you still need to adjust for population. Obviously a country with 320 million people is going to have more shootings than one with of 5 million (Norway) or even 66 million (France).

          2. It means whatever Big Brother Obama says it means. Get with the program.

            1. You mean “Big Brother Number One” Obama. 1984 meets the Khmer Rouge!!
              Two great tastes that taste great together!!!

        3. So what you’re saying is you’re almost as likely to be shot by a Muslim in Europe as by a Christian in the US.
          ok.

          1. Call me when people have to change their identity because they’re hiding from the Methodists…

            1. One of my ex-wives is a Methodist. I still have nightmares.

            2. and dont forget, ‘A Methodist is just a Baptist that went to college.’

        4. Are you suggesting that awesome, pious, superior to America, hasn’t had a genocide in years Europe might actually harbor some bigots and xenophobes? Don’t sugar coat it..

    4. “This type” of mass violence does not happen, “with this kind of frequency.” It’s not an outrageous statement.

      1. Of course it isn’t, of you are a graduate of Room 101.

      2. Lemme ask you this, MJ. Do you think MORE people would have died or FEWER would have died if each one of those good Christian bible students had had a Glock on their hips and some training under their belt?

        1. We have armed security at our church to try to stop this sort of thing. Of course, we have an enormous outreach to gangs in our area, too.

    5. I think it’s one of those tricks, wherein if you point one out, that’s not an “advanced country”, so the only advanced countries turn out to be Monaco & the Vatican.

      1. Yes!

        [bumps fists with Le Chiffre]

      2. Liechtenstein and Andorra are the last bastions of true civilization.

      3. That implies that Mexico is backward!

        1. They have gun control after all…

          1. And.. “the war on drugs”.. literally..

    6. It is hard to admit that we are a more violent citizenry, but we are for what it’s worth. Just imagine how much more violent we would be perceived if cop murders where included in the statistics.
      I’d be curious to know if woodchippers were included as instruments of death on the graph.

    7. The crooks in Washington have long sought to ban even the possession of a BB gun by civilians. Yet, when it comes to government thugs, they want access to grenades. More hypocrisy, just like millions of past and former government workers have not paid their income or estate taxes, when obligated to do so in years. IRS gives their fellow crooks a free pass. Obama won two landslide elections by dividing people. It is always, women vs man; black vs white; government employee vs non government workers; Latino vs non Latino. You get the idea. That is why Obama is so popular, he plays people against each other. If he could run again, he would win in a landslide. Now, he will campaign for Hillary and get her elected in a landslide. Soon we will be a third world country. I have not been too happy with Republicans either. I guess we should vote out all of the incumbents, and replace them with people that respect our rights and freedoms, including our gun rights.

    8. Yea, this president needs a good stern talking to. I caution my fellow commentators on any stronger language than that in light of the recent crackdown by the feds on stronger language than that around here.

      1. Fuck that and fuck him with a rusty tire iron.

        These cocksuckers want to chill political speech (or ANY speech, for that matter), the deserve to be called out on it.

    9. Yea, this president needs a good stern talking to. I caution my fellow commentators on any stronger language than that in light of the recent crackdown by the feds on stronger language than that around here.

  2. Oppose substance control and leave it at that

  3. I don’t know about SC, but I think it is illegal to CCin a church in GA. Losing the law for better self defense seems like the obvious answer to me.

      1. Losing the law also works.

        1. I will bask in my Johnesque moment.

    1. If I remember correctly, you couldn’t carry in a house of worship in Virginia either. Or on a college campus. And we all know how well THAT worked.

    2. You can’t carry in a church unless you get permission from whoever is in charge.

      1. There is no law in Florida that prevents CC in a church. I think it is akin to if an aquantence doesn’t want guns in their house you have to respect that.

      2. God?

        1. I think that’s firm legal ground. Just say “God told me I could open carry.”

      3. Jesus?

    3. In SC you need express permission

      Wonder of wonders we avoided such a prohibition in Illinois. Possibly because the woman who’s lawsuit forced CC in Illinois happened to have been in a church when she was attacked.

      1. IIRC, that church expressly forbids firearms. It is one of those gun free zone churches. Looks like s/he (depending on how s/he self-identifies, of course) has a lot mote to answer for.

        1. I’m also wondering if you could self identify as John Wayne or Officer John MacClane.

    4. I don’t know about concealed carry, but it seems it’s legal to pack in Georgia churches.

      But as the hippie anti-gun-violence activists at Al Jazeera put it:

      “… despite shootings in areas of worship, religious leaders will be allowed to opt in to let people take guns into churches under the law.”

      http://america.aljazeera.com/a…..where.html

      1. Maybe that is why he didn’t drive to Georgia?

    5. This needs a cultural change as well. I would bet that most church going black folk don’t carry guns. Minorities and women should be the biggest defenders of the Second Amendment.

      1. True dis

    6. It used to be required to carry a gun in church in Georgia…

  4. Jessee you disappoint me. How could you not comment on this

    At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

    Our President is a delusional moron. That is for the country at large really a bigger story than any mass shooting.

    1. France, Norway, Australia, Israel, etc. didn’t realized they were excluded from the “advanced” clique.

      1. And yet tomorrow, American “progressive” politicians will be lecturing us about how “more advanced “countries” like the ones you named are so far ahead of us because they have socialized medicine, high speed rail, etc.

    2. Our President is a delusional moron.

    3. Umm, squirrels. I agree BHO is delusional but I think he modified that sentence with the one which followed.

      1. The next sentence is really even dumber

        It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.

        Really? I am pretty sure it happens about every week in places like Nigeria. And he didn’t qualify that with “advanced nations”. And what is an advanced nation anyway? Does he think a place like Mexico is “primitive”? Is that pretty fucking racist of him?

        1. See below. I think the second sentence is still supposed to be talking about “advanced nations.” Which, yeah, still leaves you places like Mexico and Israel to deal with, but presumably it excludes Uganda.

          1. But I agree that “advanced nations” is a bad phrase to be slinging around.

            1. If a George Bush has said that Salon would be having kittens about how racist it was. And frankly, for once they would have a point. The people in Nigeria or Mexico are not inferior humans to Americans or Europeans.

            2. And in fairness to Obama, I am pretty certain if he were honest, he would admit that he doesn’t recognize Israel’s existence. So from his perspective, counting them as an “advance nation” is not a problem.

            3. Not only is it of questionable taste, it’s purely a weasel word that’s thrown in to No-True-Scotsman the argument.
              Other countries don’t have this kind of violence.
              Yes they do, what about ______?
              Well, no advanced country has this kind of thing.

              1. I think he meant that there are at least two other countries in the world that have a lower rate. Now take THAT!!

          2. Well, Mexico won’t count – all that violence is justified by (and justifies) the righteous War on Drugs.

            Plus, Mexico has very strict gun control so those people aren’t really being killed in *gun violence* – it OK to strangle, stab, tire, etc people, as long as they aren’t shot.

            1. They invented an entirely different category for gun violence in Mexico to explain away that strict gun control failure: “NARCO-TERRORISM.”

    4. How could you not comment on this

      I gave him the benefit of the doubt and took the sentence immediately afterward as an amendment to it?so that what he actually means is that it doesn’t happen “with this kind of frequency,” not that it never happens at all. That still requires him to gerrymander the categories “advanced countries” (Is Mexico part of the club?) and “this type of mass violence” (Does the mass violence you see in Israel count?), but it isn’t as obviously delusional.

      1. I don’t think he is delusion. I think he has a low IQ and is not very thoughtful about what he says. He is the most intellectually inferior President in history.

        1. I doubt that. This sort of rhetorical clumsiness is pretty common?not every president is ready to parse every word down to “is.”

          1. But he does it more than any of them. There is no question at all Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all had a much higher IQ than Obama. Bush II showed a similar penchant for this, but after 8 years Obama has easily surpassed him.

            The truth is what it is Jesse. Obama is not that bright. And worse, he has almost no intellectual imagination or ability to understand the other side of a position.

            1. You don’t remember the sort of word salad that Bush I would produce? The guy was smart, but he didn’t speak well.

              1. I think what John is really getting at is that Obama, whose fan’s have deemed him the greatest intellectual to ever reside in the White House, is intellectually lazy.

                1. Intellectually lazy or so arrogant he believes, despite much evidence, that he’ll be okay if he wings his conferences instead of preparing.

              2. I totally remember that. But Bush whatever his faults as a speaker showed the ability to understand the opposing position. Obama is utterly incapable of that. He has never once in his life given an honest account of an opposing position or given any indication he understands one. This more than anything is why he is such a failure as President. Because he is so intellectually stunted, he is utterly unable to convince anyone who isn’t already on his side.

                1. ^This. That was his problem from day one. He has always misrepresented opposing views or treated them as made in bad faith. The far left is starting to realize it, incidentally, with issues like this trade deal.

              3. I think the first declarative sentence is a window into his true feelings. The second modifying sentence was a quick, “fuck, I’d better give myself some wiggle room here.”

                He’s a shitheel but he’s no dummy.

              4. You don’t remember the sort of word salad that Bush I would produce? The guy was smart, but he didn’t speak well.

                George H. W. Bush was a businessman, not a lawyer. It takes a lawyer to parse every sentence down to “is”.

                (Does that mean that Barack Obama isn’t all that good of a lawyer?)

            2. I agree about all of this. He is not intellectually curious at all. Like all progs. He knows what he believes, all his pals repeat the same things, so he doesn’t need to learn anything more.

              I also don’t think he has a great deal of mental firepower.

              1. I happen to think that Obama is probably relatively bright (I’d say IQ is in the 120s-130s), it’s just that his intellectual habits haven’t been challenged, and his thinking has never been critically developed because he bought in, hook, line, and sinker, to what radical leftism was selling during his collegiate and professorial careers, and therefore has never had to actively think, since all the answers were already available to him. I am open, however, to the possibility that he is not that smart, and I’m just projecting my own lack of intellectual curiosity as a teenager onto Obama.

          2. But the televisions and the newspapers told me he was the smartest president in history! HISTORY!!!!

            1. Yes, even Don Imus said it daily.

          3. “This sort of rhetorical clumsiness is pretty common”

            I won’t question his IQ, but it’s not a cheap shot to suggest that his outlandish statements aren’t rare, and they reveal him to be somewhat deluded and out of touch. An intellectually honest liberal would not say “the ACA will not add a SINGLE dime to the budget”. It’s just not possible. He thinks Obamacare is a resounding success beyond even his projections.

            The leader of the free world cannot say “I get my news from CNN” and dismiss Edward Snowden as a “low level tech guy” when he’s either a hero or a traitor to most of the nation. He didn’t attend the Paris rally and continued to bully Israel even though the terrorists target their place of worship regularly.

            This guy is sort of a Manchurian candidate. He draws from his leftist position and narrative all the time. If a terrorist killed 9 people at that Cartoon contest, he would mince words about “respecting free speech and Islam” It’s clockwork.

            1. I won’t question his IQ, but it’s not a cheap shot to suggest that his outlandish statements aren’t rare, and they reveal him to be somewhat deluded and out of touch.

              I don’t think it’s anything of the sort. It seems to me that such language constitutes very clear signaling to the portion of his base of white middle-and upper-class progressives who are obsessed with European socialistic governing models. These are the types who ensconce themselves in suburban whiteopias, gated communities, or high-rises with private security, and live in utter terror of some prole escalating an argument into violence, despite the fact that most violent crime and murders happen in poor areas amongst populations with low impulse control and low time orientation. Saying that these types of incidents don’t happen in “more advanced countries” is his way of saying to these people that he understands and shares their paranoia, and conveniently shifts any sort of responsibility of leadership away from him.

        2. That’s funny, because I myself think that posting that post is ipso facto evidence of severe cognitive deficiency! Ironic!

      2. Does the mass violence you see in Israel count?

        Sounds like we need a canned ruling from Sheldon on that one.

    5. I think most nations are more ant farm than the U.S. is. In that, they are less likely to act rebellious in any way. Israelis all know how to use guns and Swiss do as well. That said, deranged people are gonna act deranged. I don’t think anyone really knows why America is more violent but I also think that these high profile mass shootings make up a very small percentage of the total violence.

      1. And the statistics largely back you up. Different studies range it from as low as 1% to 3% of all shooting deaths, including Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Guns.

    6. And yet Obama is right.

      As a general rule, mass murder in other advanced countries is the infrequent EXCEPTION rather than the rule. In contrast, it happens in the US with an all-too-frequent occurrence. So instead of pointing to single incidents in places like Norway, try comparing the number opf mass murder incidents over the past (say) 20 years in that country then compare that number to the number of mass murder incidents in the US over the same period.

      And even that is just the tip of the iceberg. Norway had a grand total of 34 murders in 2008. In contrast, that same year in the US the FBI recorded 16,465 people who died in murders or non-negligent homicides. That’s a murder rate for Norway of 0.69 people per 100,000 people versus 5.4 per 100,000 in the US.

      1. And what if the murder rate for Norwegians was the same in this country as Norway? What would that prove?

  5. We don’t have all the facts

    Stop right there.

    1. But I will pull some out of my ass because that is what I do.

      /Obama

      1. Because no tradgedy should ever go to waste.

    2. We don’t have all the facts, but I fully intend to exploit this tragedy to strip you of more of your rights.

    3. Once again, Obama admits he knows almost nothing about a recent event, but he’s going to comment anyway, because he’s just so fucking brilliant he’s going to get to the truth of it without all those silly little facts the rest of us wait for.

  6. if the purpose of these legislative moves was to stop the actual crime that occurred, or to advance a broader agenda they may not be comfortable with

    Crazy talk!

  7. We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone didn’t carry a concealed weapon when it was really needed.

    1. Imagine if the cops had shown up during the shooting.

    2. So you think that staging an OK-corral of a gun battle in a crowded church would produce LESS dead people?

      You’re joking right?

      Tell me, just exactly how many mass murders has somebody carrying a concealed weapon been able to prevent or even lessen?

      1. Well for starters theres these two guys http://www.ammoland.com/2014/0…..ple-lives/ http://www.thefederalistpapers…..in-chicago

        1. And then there’s the catch 22 of a mass shooting being defined as killing over a certain number of people, so if you stop the shooter before the hits that number, it’s not a mass shooting. Plus, it has been shown that most mass shooters are the most craven of cowards, and except for rare examples when confronted with armed resistance will retreat, kill themselves, or get death by cop.

  8. …many of those new supporters of gun laws “ask themselves if the purpose of these legislative moves was to stop the actual crime that occurred, or to advance a broader agenda they may not be comfortable with.”…after each spike subsides, support for gun control is even lower than it was before the shooting.”

    Gee, you mean people who realize that a tragedy was being exploited for an agenda might find themselves a little less sympathetic to that agenda? You don’t say.

    1. I think people are also starting to notice that the proposed laws wouldn’t even prevent the crime that prompted them. That and they’re figuring out that the blood-in-the-streets predictions never seem to come true.

      1. “I think people are also starting to notice that the proposed laws wouldn’t even prevent the crime that prompted them.”

        They work in Australia.

        in the decade prior to 1996 there were half a dozen massacres through the use of guns. After Tasmania’s Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian federal government persuaded the Australian states to enact comprehensive gun control laws. In two decades since there have only been about two that I know of.

  9. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now.

    Is that a proper usage of “foreclose”?

    1. Pretty sure he meant “foreskin.”

      1. -10 points for not calling yourself Chipper Gore.

        1. +1 Don’t Chip Me Bro

    2. Yes.

    3. I think by “politics” he means the U.S. Constitution….

  10. From a philosophical perspective, is the reflexive prog reaction to these events (blame an inanimate object) because they cannot accept that “bad people will do bad things” since this runs counter to their ideology that all things can be planned, accounted for and controlled? They can’t really look at 1.5 pounds of metal and plastic and seriously just think “that’s bad juju.” Or am I giving them too much credit?

    1. Every now and then you’ll find a bullshit psychology study where people hold toy guns and show more violent thoughts, or something stupid like that. So, no, I think these people really do believe weapons cause violence.

      1. Because the researchers know, deep down in their hearts, they if they had the opportunity, they would kill some poor bastards. Dr. Mengele was unusually reflective in his journal.

        1. Precisely. Common-sense science control now!

    2. You’re giving them too much credit. They’re fucking animists who believe guns are evil totems.

      1. Just like money invokes the economic animal spirits, guns invoke the violence animal spirits.

  11. I expect the discussion surrounding this case to go full retard in a hurry. The left actually has a southern, white racist this time.

    1. Because with a southern white racist as the perp, it doesn’t expose their “disarm the negro” agenda.

    2. Yep. This is one of those times the broken clock is coincidentally right. Proggies blame everything on racism. I’m sure they’re giddy they have proof for once.

  12. The very first thing out of the mouth of Choconix was grab the guns.

    1. The only surprising thing is that he wasn’t on a golf course when he said it.

  13. I think it also has to do with the fact that liberals have firmly entrenched gun control as a culture war issue. As a result, they turn off a lot of Americans by mocking “gun nuts” and Bible-thumping rednecks who cling to their guns and religion when the subject comes up.

    If they weren’t so obsessed with social signaling how much they hate those people they might actually develop a more effective movement. But happily for us, they’re morons and can’t help it.

    1. This. It’s 100% a tribal KULTUR WAR issue now.

    2. I’m sure they’ll change a lot of minds in South Carolina with this tactic.

    3. Actually it’s the fact that there is a direct connection between lots of guns being around and lots of people getting holes in them. If that’s not a problem you think we should solve, fine, but it’s hardly surprising if liberals do, and just because your cultural signaling involves fetishizing death machines doesn’t mean this obvious connection doesn’t exist.

      1. No there is not Tony. Rural America has many more guns per capita than big cities and a much lower murder rate. There is no connection. You think there is because you and people like you are stupid and seem to take pride in being so.

        1. The Secret Service’s behavior belies Tony’s claims.

          1. I was in Kuwait with over a hundred thousand people armed with automatic weapons. Somehow, almost no one was shot and the ones who were were by accident.

            1. John, you enjoy writing, right?

              I guess that means you fetishize your keyboard and word processor software.

              1. That is right. It is a substitute penis or something.

            2. “Somehow, almost no one was shot and the ones who were were by accident.”

              Negligent discharge. No such thing as a gun accident, unless you dropped it and it went off, which is still operator error.

        2. Okay but real academic research of the question has shown that gun availability in developed countries correlates with homicide and suicide rates. Across states, the more guns, the more homicides and suicides.

          I don’t know why this should be shocking. I just wish people who value liberty above all would acknowledge that this will mean a riskier society. There’s no shame in admitting that.

          1. Guns are illegal in Mexico and owning one is punishable by years in prison. How is that working out? Unless you could get rid of every gun in the world, all gun laws do is disarm the public and make them defenseless against the criminals.

            It is hysterical to listen to you rail against guns. Lets live in a world where there are no guns and see how that works out for homosexuals and women and old people anyone else who isn’t well liked and doesn’t have the ability to defend themselves with brute force.

            1. Okay there is your fact-free bullshit, and then there are facts. More gun availability means more deaths. This should be, like, the assumption we make before we even research it, because it seems like it’s pretty fucking obvious. Are you lying to yourself because if you told the truth, you wouldn’t believe in maximum gun availability? Or doesn’t it matter? Just say you’re ok with 11,000 gun homicides a year as a fair price for the freedom to have guns as available they are. I’d respect you more than this fake self-defense narrative the NRA shat into your ears.

              1. Yeah tony, more gun availability equals more death. That is why the murder rate in Mexico is so low. And that is also why the murder rate went down in this country throughout the Bush years despite gun laws getting laxer.

                Tony just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it true.
                Just say you’re ok with 11,000 gun homicides a year as a fair price for the freedom to have guns as available they are. I’d respect you more than this fake self-defense narrative the NRA shat into your ears.

                Yes Tony I am okay with that because the price of eliminating them would be putting everyone at the mercy of the mob. Ultimately, that is really what you are pissed about. People can defend them and leftists like you can’t use the mob to terrorize them into submission. Sorry Tony, America is armed. Your brand of fascism doesn’t work here like it does in Europe.

                1. I like Europe.

                  1. Then why don’t you fucking move there?

              2. Well, more swimming pools means more deaths by drowning, more cars has meant more deaths by accidents, more planes has meant more deaths by plane crashes. I’m not really sure what your point is.

                Almost all the 11,000 gun homicides you seem to find abhorrent are drug war related. If you really care that much about those 11,000 people, the simplest thing to do is to eliminate the war on drugs.Why not do that first?

                1. And some of the things you mention are far more likely to kill you than guns. We have 30,000 car accident deaths every year. There are 250 million registered cars in the U.S. This is in comparison to the 11,000 deaths from 300 million guns. Averaging across the whole population, you’re a bit more than 3 times more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. That seems like a relevant statistic.

                  Moreover, as R-w-a points out, most of the gun deaths in the U.S. are relegated to a small portion of the population (those involved in the illicit drug trade). This makes an average person even more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun.

                  And, of course, let’s not forget that gun control would do NOTHING to stop the gun violence. Even the BATF admits that 93% of all gun killings are committed with illegally-obtained weapons. What makes you think that these criminals are any more likely to comply with new restrictions than the ones currently in place?

                  1. But nobody is claiming that the liberty to drive is cost-free in terms of human lives. It’s just a risk we are willing to take on. I get that the NRA wouldn’t push as many guns by admitting the same, but car manufacturers are, often at the behest of government, making safer cars. The gun lobby is still in the “tobacco doesn’t cause cancer” phase.

                    1. Who here is claiming that the liberty to own firearms is cost-free? It also clearly seems to be a risk that we are willing to take on, given the current climate surrounding gun control laws. It’s just not a risk that YOU’RE willing to take on.

                    2. Your car manufacturer comparison is not apt at all. It ignores the fact that the VAST majority of gun deaths are caused by a tiny minority of people involved in another illegal activity (most of whom obtain their guns illegally, according to the BATF). There is no corresponding trait in the auto industry.

                    3. A more apt comparison is with black people.

                      Black people are 13% of the population, and yet commit 5,500 (half) of those gun deaths.

                      and yet, only 0.0141% of black people cause gun deaths.

                      Think about it.

                    4. Actually the majority of gun deaths are suicides – not homicides.

                      I don’t know anyone who advocates getting rid of cars because someone might deliberately crash their car in an attempt to kill themselves.

                2. ^^This!

                  Eliminating the war on drugs would have a huge impact on gun homicides.

              3. Humans will find a way to kill each other- lizard overlord
                Oh yeah, Tony is a dumbfuck – gun lover who never shot anybody nor intends to.

              4. “More gun availability means more deaths. This should be, like, the assumption we make before we even research it, because it seems like it’s pretty fucking obvious. ”

                Looks like you have a pretty good grasp of how science works.

                Now tell us about global warming.

              5. [Just say you’re ok with 11,000 gun homicides a year]

                As they are counted, I can live wit it.

              6. Okay but real academic research of the question has shown that gun availability in developed countries correlates with homicide and suicide rates.

                Real academic research has also shown alcohol to be more dangerous than firearms. Maybe if you didn’t fetishize your desire to get drunk, there’d be fewer drunk-driving deaths by your logic.

                Okay there is your fact-free bullshit, and then there are facts.

                Like the fact that you gleefully indulge in something that kills more people every year than guns?

                It’s hilarious watching you proglydytes whine about public safety when you chimp out about something that empirically kills fewer people every year than something you enjoy. You assholes certainly would be nothing without your special pleading.

              7. Tony:

                Just say you’re ok with 11,000 gun homicides a year as a fair price for the freedom to have guns as available they are.

                Sure, just as long as you’re OK with people being murdered who can’t defend themselves because the government won’t let them have guns.

                http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m…..t-n2008956

                So, this lady was waiting on her gun permit because she was afraid of her ex-boyfriend, who she got a restraining order for.

                And, while she was waiting, oh, 50 days or so, he showed up at her home and stabbed her to death with a knife.

                So, do you think her death is a price you’re willing to pay for all of us to be that much safer? And, by the price you’re willing to pay, don’t you mean the price you’re willing for people like her to pay for you so that you can be safer? Because if you don’t think you need or want a gun, it doesn’t really effect your ability to defend yourself, now does it?

                Talk about paying the price.

                Or, perhaps you take consolation in the fact that, thanks to the gun laws, she was able to get stabbed to death by her ex-bf, instead of shot?

              8. Just say you’re ok with 11,000 gun homicides a year

                Just say you’re ok with 10,000 drunk driving deaths a year as a fair price for freedom to have alcohol as available as it is. I’d respect you more than this fake outrage over something that doesn’t kill nearly as many people.

                1. We could eliminate drunk driving deaths by banning automobiles that can travel faster than 5 mph (8km/h).

            2. “Guns are illegal in Mexico and owning one is punishable by years in prison.”

              Not according to the Wikipedia article “Gun politics in Mexico”.

              “A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them. … While it is true that Mexico possesses strict gun laws, where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement, the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents; given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law.”

          2. Okay but real academic research of the question has shown that gun availability in developed countries correlates with homicide and suicide rates

            No it does not. It correlates with homicides and suicides by firearm. But it most certainly does not correlate with homicide & suicide rates in any of the studies I have seen.

            You got a cite?

              1. And here’s a study showing the opposite. http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu…..online.pdf

                1. Tony’s one study trumps your one study (and the dozen other you can find if you want). Therefore he is right.

              2. And another finding that: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”
                http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881

            1. There is a lot of gun availability in countries where gun ownership is illegal because there is widespread disobedience of those laws.

            2. Hey Tarzan. I used to work with a guy from Ireland. He told me after the government started banning guns, and pocketknives people just started killing each other with clubs. Of course certain elements of society still could get their hands on guns. I will leave it to Tony’s superior intellect to figure out what those elements were. =)

          3. I’ll admit it. If people want to take their own lives with firearms, I’m ok with that.

            1. I am not okay with it, but I wouldn’t feel better if they jumped out of windows. I don’t see what the gun has to do with it.

            2. I am not okay with it, but I wouldn’t feel better if they jumped out of windows. I don’t see what the gun has to do with it.

            3. I’m “OK” with it in the sense that I wish they wouldn’t, but I accept that they’re probably going to do so with whatever methods are available, and that suicide prevention is not a good reason to go restricting guns.

              Ideally, they’d be able to go to a physician and get themselves euthanized, but that’s probably not going to happen.

          4. Tony, if you eliminated the drug war you’d eliminate a significant portion of deaths by gun violence.

            As for the rest, the common thread in every mass shooting like this is psychiatric. The individuals were mentally ill. Why not address the human aspect of the human problem first instead of just blaming the inanimate objects that were used?

            As to your point about liberty, yes, it does mean a riskier society but i for one would prefer to take my chances than be subject to the even riskier prospect of a State Monopoly on Violence.

            1. No doubt this country has a serious problem dealing with the mentally ill. One such problem is that they can get their hands on guns pretty easily.

              1. Sure. Anyone that wants to can get a gun. Stricter gun-control laws won’t change that. The biggest problem the country has with the mentally ill is the stigma attached to it. But stricter gun control laws won’t prevent a psychopath from getting a gun.

                1. Well, if you’re designated as mentally ill, you lose a whole lot of other rights and are added into a number of medical and government databases. People aren’t going to be lining up for treatment when there is so much to lose.

                  1. Moreover, the VAST majority of those with mental illnesses DO NOT go out and kill people with guns. Any system that based the right to gun ownership on mental health status would target WAY more people than necessary. Then there’s the question of how to define mental illness. Does any who’s ever taken Xanax count?

                    1. And for how long?

                      Is the guy who admitted himself in a mental hospital because of depression when he was 18 get barred forever?

                    2. Somehow I don’t think that such a thing would actually offend a lot of people. We already have a class of people who are permanently barred from owning guns: convicted felons. Most of them are convicted of non-violent crimes that a lot of the public doesn’t even agree are crimes. Yet there is no rush to defend the gun ownership rights of someone who was convicted of distribution 20 years ago. Why would you think that people would rush to defend the gun ownership rights of someone who was once “crazy”? Especially given the status that mental health issues entail in this country.

                    3. “Your wife of 20 years left you and you’re feeling depressed? You’re a ticking time bomb; let’s relieve you of those firearms. For your own good.”

                      “You’re upset about some stuff you saw over in Iraq? You’re a PTSD whackjob! No guns for you!”

                      “You don’t talk much and only have a few friends? No doubt about it: you’re an autism-spectrum psychopath just like Adam Lanza! Hand over those guns!”

                      “You don’t agree 110% with the Democrat Party platform? You’re obviously a seething cauldron of racist hatred, just like that guy who shot up the black church in South Carolina! Hope you didn’t plan on buying any guns!”

                  2. Then we need random mental health examinations to catch them. we could also offer bounties for people to turn in the mentally ill.

              2. “One such problem is that they can get their hands on guns pretty easily.”

                Um, no it ain’t. Some of the Korean business owners around the country used guns from the LA riots to defend their shops when riots broke out in Baltimore. And guns are EXPENSIVE.

              3. Great job at dodging the WOD issue Tony.

          5. Okay but real academic research of the question has shown that gun availability in developed countries correlates with homicide and suicide rates.

            No it hasn’t.

          6. Pretty much.

            The government wants to take ultimate responsibility for protecting everyone. However, as Charleston demonstrates, they can’t really protect anyone.

            So, of course, the next step is to ban everything that could possibly be used to kill people.

            That’s getting difficult, considering how easy it is to make bombs, burn down buildings, make guns in your own home, etc.

            Frankly, I’m not sure that the answer isn’t to let people be just as racist as they want to be, and let these hillbilly backward rednecks carve out some poverty valley in appalachia, where they can be free to segregate against any races they want, and, by doing so, implicitly segregate themselves from the rest of us. Win-win, if you ask me.

            But, we can’t do that, because 1960’s. The optics are too bad. Why, what if the whole country did it? Or some BS.

            So, let’s let progressives pretend that they could really protect everyone if only they could ban everything, and, therefore, point guilty fingers at everyone who opposes them. Because we’re considering an imaginary future where they protect everyone from everything.

            And we should certainly do all of that before considering anything drastic, like ending the drug war.

            1. It always got me that Randy Weaver was investigated and entrapped due to his open racist attitude but had already removed himself and his family to a remote hillside. OK, I don’t agree with him on probably just about anything except for his willing self-exile from society. Going after him was a huge waste of tax money.

            2. Hop on Stormfront sometime ( you can do that as a guest if you’re worried about the NSA knowing you were on a White Nationalist site) and you would find many a member who would welcome your idea with open arms. A lot of them claim that’s all they want.

          7. Is Japan a developed country dummy?

            Can you own a gun there?

            Why do they have the highest suicide rate?

            Do you wear a helmet tony?

        3. I live in a smallish town in rural wisconsin and there are guns EVERYWHERE. Guess what? We haven’t had a murder in forever and the last one was a stabbing. It’s not the guns that cause people to kill each other, it’s the culture.

          1. Yeah, the “evil gun-nutz” are actually some of the best-behaved and most law-abiding people in the country.

            Someone with a concealed carry permit is orders of magnitude less likely to commit any kind of crime than even police officers (people society trust with guns.)

            1. True. CC holders know that if they pulled some shit like shooting a 12 year old boy who was fiddling with a fake gun in the park, they’d be doing hard time in the blink of an eye.

              1. Unless they also happen to be a cop, in which case they would probably get off scot free.

        4. A few years ago I did the math on removing Cook County from Illinois, the rest of Illinois (considerably more gun owner friendly) ends up being about as safe as neighboring Iowa, despite still having a few good sized cities counted, and the associated spillover violence into Will/Dupage/St Clair from Chicago and St Louis.

          Iowa is very nearly Western Europe levels of safe. Like .1 to .2 per hundred thousand higher.

          1. Not only that, but in Chicago, 70% of shootings are contained within a set of 170K people who make up co-offender social networks. Of those shootings, 89% are contained within the largest single co-offender social network (107K people).

            The gun shot victimization rate in Chicago is 62.1 per 100K. In the co-offender networks, it is 740.5 per 100K. If my math is right (a simple 70% reduction), outside the co-offender network, the murder rate falls to 18.63 per 100K.

            And by “contained within”, I mean that both the perpetrator and the victim are members of a co-offender social network.

      2. our cultural signaling involves fetishizing death machines

        Again with the psychological projection!

        1. Yeah, progtards are constantly spouting this shit. I honestly have no idea what the hell they are even talking about.

      3. but it’s hardly surprising if liberals do, and just because your cultural signaling involves fetishizing death machines doesn’t mean this obvious connection doesn’t exist.

        Is this where I point out that I don’t own a gun and have little personal interest in them? And yet despite this I’m not irrationally afraid of them even though I live in gun-friendly Arizona.

        You’re in Oklahoma, right Tony? Do you fear going out of the house everyday because of all those rednecks and their death machines out there?

      4. Let’s try this one. Gay sex leads to higher AIDS transmission rates, so we will ban homosexuality for the greater good. Seem fair?

        1. [Let’s try this one. Gay sex leads to higher AIDS transmission rates, so we will ban homosexuality for the greater good. Seem fair?]

          Interesting argument. When Jimmy Carter imported AIDS to America with the Haitian boaters it was largely confined to S. Florida and NY bath houses amongst practicing homosexuals. A case can be made that it could have been largely controlled by forceably warehousing the AIDS positive in sanitoriums ala tuberculosis positives of the “40s and 50’s. I’m sure Tony would have been up for that one.

      5. Well, there is something like 300 million guns and 80 million gun owners, Tony, so it seems to me the probability is quite low, approaching nil, unless you are an active participant in the Drug War. I’d hazard a guess that statistically speaking there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths.

        1. There is your hazarded guess, and then there are actual statistics.

          1. 11,000 gun homicides a year against 80 million gun owners works out to a 0.014% chance of being killed by a legal gun owner.

            But, really, since anyone over 18 can own a gun, you have to look at the entire population of 18, which is what, 250 million? So the probability drops to .0044%

            I’ll take those odds every day.

            1. Interesting.

              Half of those 11,000 homicides are committed by blacks, who are 13% of the population.

              Which means that only 0.014% of black people commit those homicides.

          2. If you do not live in a high crime area and are not a criminal, you are highly unlikely to be killed by a firearm, unless you use the firearm on yourself. Your cited studies cite correlation but not causation. The two are not the same. The United States has far more homicides per capita than other countries with similar gun ownership rates. If gun ownership was the determining factor, then that shouldn’t be the case.

            I realize it’s hard for you to grasp, but passing a few laws isn’t going to make Americans stop wanting to kill each other. I’m also waiting for you to explain how you plan to eliminate the 300 million guns that are currently in circulation, or how you plan to disarm the criminals, who already are responsible for almost all of the gun deaths that aren’t suicides or accidents. I’m sure those explanations are coming right along.

            1. If you do not live in a high crime area and are not a criminal, you are highly unlikely to be killed by a firearm, unless you use the firearm on yourself.

              It’s something like 0.003%, IIRC.

          3. And the actual statistics do not show that more guns cause more murders. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881. All of the studies you cite are about correlation. While correlation may be interesting, it’s irrelevant to whether gun control laws can stop murders.

          4. Poor little fella, he thinks statistics are math. LULZ

      6. I LOVE YOU TONY AND YOUR OPINIONS MATTER!!!! YOU ARE A SPECIAL PERSON

        1. Now go the fuck away.

  14. If there had been a good guy with a gun at that prayer meeting, maybe fewer people would be dead. This was a terrible act and a tragedy, and it pains me to think that it was racially motivated. But this was a 21-year-old young man with no felony convictions whose father bought him the gun as a gift, so what remotely feasible gun control law would have stopped him from acquiring one? A waiting period wouldn’t have helped. He had an (apparently) misdemeanor drug charge that he served time for, but I don’t think anyone is agitating for anyone with a misdemeanor to be ineligible. We can’t look into people’s souls when they go to purchase a gun (or a knife, or a hammer, or an axe). We’re not going to interview everyone’s family and friends before we sell a gun to someone, and even so, his father bought it. We’re not going to prohibit family transfers. I just don’t see how anyone could think that there’s a gun control law that would stop this that doesn’t violate the second amendment (or that would be remotely enforceable).

    1. I just don’t see how anyone could think that there’s a gun control law that would stop this that doesn’t violate the second amendment

      They do think this. They believe that laws are magic and all they have to do is pass the right law or laws and everything that makes them feel icky will go away.

      1. I know a magic law that would have fixed this. Striking the part of South Carolina statue that prohibits carrying of concealed weapons in any “church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body.” Shazaam!

  15. 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.

    Pedant: But you don’t know all the facts, so you don’t know if he had no trouble. Obtaining a gun could have been a year long, arduous task for him.

    1. Sort, it took him 21 years.

    2. I hope they find that this POS shooter was turned down a dozen times in background checks so he just stole the gun he used from some irresponsible, overly militarized federal agency. I’m sure Obama would be walking back his statement right away.

  16. Somehow I wandered onto one of the crazy rightwing freak sites. Apparently they’re all blaming mass shootings on antidepressants. Is this a thing?

    1. Everything is a thing now

    2. The correct answer is, that guy is a piece of shit and should rot in jail until he dies.

      1. Well, yeah, but I wonder if he had some history of psychiatric problems as that seems to be the common thread in these things.

        1. I’m sympathetic to the mentally ill, but when you cross the line of killing people, that sympathy evaporates.

          1. Agreed. My point was more that everyone should take mental illness more seriously and not stigmatize it.

          1. This right here.

    3. I haven’t heard that. Depending on which right-wing site you were at I wouldn’t be surprised.

      1. I’ve heard it, and not just from the far right. A segment of the anti-pharm left has embraced that story too.

        1. InfoWars has the “he took SSRIs…Merck and Eli Lilly must be to blame” bullshit up. They actually cite – and I shit you not – the Citizens Commission on Human Rights which is a fucking Scientology front.

      2. Yeah, it’s one of those issues with some weird ideological overlap.

    4. That is a false hope!!!! ITS REALLY CHEMTRAILS!!11!11!one one one!

      /foil hat

      1. The other half are blaming Judaism.

        1. While Salon is busy blaming white people, in general.

    5. Is this a thing?

      You never heard of Scientology?

    6. It’s the same animism that you’re practicing, Tony, except they are blaming chemicals while you are blaming objects.

    7. Not likely.

      But I might add a personal anecdote.

      When I was much younger I was on antidepressants. I got off of them because I finally came to the realization that the only emotion I was able to feel was anger.

      If anger is all you have, bad things will eventually happen. Perhaps not “mass murder” bad, but it shouldn’t be discounted outright, even if only a small contributing factor.

  17. So, did this church fail to adequately maintain their “Gun Free Zone” sign, or what?

    1. I don’t know the SC law, but they might not have had a choice.

      1. I was talking about the SC law upthread…

        1. Thanks. These people shouldn’t be held responsible for bad laws. The church members get nothing but sympathy.

          1. Just to be clear, that was my point. I wasn’t mocking the church members.

  18. Well there goes the presidential campaign: Lindsey Graham’s niece went to school with shooting suspect.

    1. Remember, we have the worst commenting community in the intertits.

      y do libs fear real discussion ? 20 minutes ago
      So Graham’s niece knew OF this kid from 8th grade? Since Roof is 21, that is 7 years ago. What does an 8th grader know about psychological assessments, let alone what will that 8th grader remember for seven years? What a non story the hill.

      SkippingDog ? 2 hours ago
      Sounds like a typical Young Republican.

      Pearz82 SkippingDog ? an hour ago
      And I guess those are Black Republicans killing 5-6 a week in Chicago?? You jerk this guy has some mental issues, a bit like you obviously.

      Bill Hicks Lives Pearz82 ? an hour ago
      The suspect had mental issues? We have no evidence of this, the mental issues only exist in your head.

      We do, however, have a concrete understanding of his political views from various sources. He’s a conservative. Congratulations.

      craig1975 Bill Hicks Lives ? 24 minutes ago
      His mental issue was the fact that he hated blacks.

      Your1Friend Pearz82 ? an hour ago
      And what organizations and businesses have been supplying hundreds of thousands (or is it millions?) of guns for decades directly and indirectly to Americans and “rogue nations?”

      Not liberals!

      BTW, I am all for the Second Amendment, but I am also all for responsible gun ownership and use. America is currently not abiding by the latter clause.

      1. For shits and giggles I went to Gawker to see what they were saying.

        I should not have done that.

      2. 11,000 shootings out of 100,000+ guns per annum (.0034%). Sounds like “America” is abiding rigidly to responsible gun ownership.

    2. Deputy Barney Fife, Mayberry ? 19 minutes ago
      It’s a small world after all down there in South Carolina Andy; imagine the shooter knowing the Senator’s family like that. So close to high political power, what a coincidence.

      1. I can’t tell if that one is serious…

      2. He was basically the son that Graham never had, if you think about it.

        1. If Graham had a son he would look like _______.

          1. A walking dick? Fitting.

  19. And yet the cities with the highest gun crime rates have the tightest gun laws,like ,oh Chicago.Most of which which is due to the war on drugs.I wonder how much nation wide the drug war adds to the murder rate.

    1. Murder by guns – I wouldn’t be surprised if it is well north of 50%.

    2. NYC has equally restrictive laws and like 1/4 the gun crime of Chicago. IMHO there must be other factors that are way more predictive.

      1. I think that’s kinda the point, though. Restrictive gun laws are, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, hurt law-abiding citizens.

      2. That factor seems to be Guiliani’s Stop and Frisk law, where cops basically searched anybody they felt like. Til a judge threw it out in 2013.

    3. See also, Washington, D.C.

    4. For the record, Chicago gun laws are now equivalent to Illinois gun laws with the exception of 3 grandfathered laws (15rd capacity, so called ‘AWB’, and a ban on laser sights)

      In theory Chicago could have kept its long gun registry and permit requirement, but they repealed those when they (because they had to) repealed their handgun registry and permit law.

      Illinois does require a permit to own firearms, but it at least is cheap ($1 a year), shall issue and has no training or good reason requirements.

  20. He can try to take my gun but he is a wimp and will send someone like me, Skilled Military Man, to take it…. Notice how this cowardly Democrats always send Conservatives to enforce their will. I mean really, how man Democrats or Military people do you know who vote Democrat.

    1. Tell me more. Oh, wait, sorry. Tell me More.

        1. Too late. I got you a subscription!
          AAHHHAHHHAJHHHAHJJADGJKKYVCRHKVXT

    2. how man Democrats … do you know who vote Democrat.

      Umm…99%?

      *Ed Krayewski is the 1%!

  21. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

    Ahh.. when he said this, I wanted to throw something through my television. Guy is totally ignorant of the world he lives in, or he does know, which makes him fucking cunt.

    1. A cunt either way. Intellectually lazy is my call.

      Why do research when your dogma already gives all the answers?

  22. At some point, I feel the powers that be need to come to the realization that constantly perpetrating war as the only means of conflict resolution eventually creates violence as a means to conflict resolution among it’s citizens, especially the impressionable youth.

  23. On the gun subject, I got the chance to ballistically test some various industrial junk the other night. The ceramic insulator things that are used on high-tension wires spark extremely satisfactorily when you shoot them with a 5.56 round. That is all.

    1. After the request for the Warty ipo I see a ton of name changes in our future. Ceramic Mulatto; High Wire Sevo; Grand Moff Insulator

  24. He is quick to point out that it’s the guns fault but not so quick to mention the pharmacy that is in the blood of most of the shooters. I’d imagine this one will be the same. Maybe he will take the loss on the 2A rollback if he can make the case that universal mental healthcare would have saved those people.

  25. Yes, what we need to do now is to increase the number of defenseless targets.

    That will be a big improvement.

  26. It would be nice if there was more of a social stigma to giving your obviously insane loser children weapons. “Hey, son, I’ve noticed you’re a complete loser, socially withdrawn, clearly a virgin, and now you’re into white supremacist literature. Here’s a 1911! Have fun, now!” Oh well.

    1. Well, a lot of people didn’t have nice things to say about Ms. Lanza after Sandy Hook.

    2. No kidding.

  27. So, will Governor Haley order the confederate flag at the SC state capitol to fly at half staff?

    1. The female Indian-American governor? That one?

  28. I wonder whether events like this make any of the attendees of that church think they should change religions, because their current God didn’t stop it from occurring, which means either:

    1. Their God hates them, so why should they like that God?
    or
    2. Their God is less powerful than the shooter’s God, or at least less powerful or attentive than they thought.

    1. You don’t understand religion very well.

      The correct answer is “It was God’s/Allah’s will that they should die in this manner for reasons beyond our comprehension.”

      1. But if that’s the case, maybe they shouldn’t come to this God’s att’n by invoking him. If calling the cops is dangerous, it appears calling on Gods is too.

      2. Not all religions are deterministic

        1. They don’t have to be deterministic, but just take risk factors into acc’t. It seems there’s a lot of danger in being Chosen People, & the risk/reward ratio may be unfavorable.

        2. Schroedinger’s Catchecism

        3. Not all religions are deterministic

          You should know that I’m a cheeky lil’ monkey by now.

          1. I should’ve known since there was no link to an illuminati or chicken sex video, the only two things you’re serious about

      3. “Santa Claus works in mysterious ways. It’s like when I make you eat vegetables. Sure, they taste yucky, but you have to trust that I know what’s good for you.”
        “So, Santa Claus made my parents dead because – he thinks it’s good for me?”

        1. That applies only if you find them dead under a tree or in a fireplace.

    2. Maybe they didn’t ascribe to Him the job of “[stopping] it from occurring”, and accepted the concept of human free will.

      Maybe.

    3. Who are they to god that He should stop such things?

      1. They worship at his church, don’t they? What are they getting in return, then?

    4. Why do so many atheists have a 6 year old’s concept of how religion works. It’s not about worshiping a God that will make everything good for you.

      Not to mention the concept of Free Will, which is at the heart of Christianity.

      1. If it doesn’t make your life better, why would you do it? Isn’t there any evidence that some Gods will do better by you than others? If not, how do people choose among them? I’d say this event is a pretty heavy data point in this God’s disfavor.

        I’m no atheist, but I believe only in Gods who can teach me magick and/or working alongside of whom would be to our mutual benefit.

  29. “Now is the time for mourning, but let me be clear, I’m going to proceed to flog my hobby horse of gun control right now…”

  30. Who cares what he wants? Congress writes laws, not the President.

    1. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

      *wipes eyes*
      *catches breath*

      Hahahahahahahahahaha!

      Whew!

  31. Looking at polling data from the last few shooting cycles, Blackman and Baird conclude that there isn’t just a regression to the mean, but that “the mean is in fact declining. In other words, after each spike subsides, support for gun control is even lower than it was before the shooting.”

    So, an initial emotional reaction leading to temporary support to “do something”, followed by a logical reaction of “oh, wait, disarming regular people but not criminals will lead to more shootings, not less”?

  32. I think much of the country has come to grips with it. And they decided that they want to protect the rights of law abiding citizens to have guns, even if that means things like this can happen.

  33. Is it mean of me to suggest that, since the Liberal Democrats have been riding the Racial Hobbyhorse as hard as ecer they could for a long time. And at the moment they have been willing to ovelook the Black hatred that stirred up. But did they really think that there would be no answering White hatred? Hell, the backbone of the Democrat Party used to party in white sheets and hoods. The Liberals mey pretend otherwise, but the Black Panthers and the Klan are two sides of the same coin, and it’s a coin of the Democrats’ minting.

  34. “The period of emotional capture is followed by a regression to the mean, in part because many of those new supporters of gun laws “ask themselves if the purpose of these legislative moves was to stop the actual crime that occurred, or to advance a broader agenda they may not be comfortable with.”

    The mean is declining because the gun grabbers are more and more transparently dishonest and it is more and more obvious that they have evil intent.

    Also, hasn’t someone told the Chocolate Jesus to stop prefacing his assertions with “I don’t know all the facts, but…”? God, what an idiot.

  35. Perhaps people are learning from the fact that the gun-control proposals rarely have anything to do with the crime that’s being exploited to push them through. Or perhaps they realize that when the Fascist Messiah talks gun control before any facts are available, this can only mean that he supports total gun prohibition — which he’s never willing to admit.

  36. this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

    Thanks God for that. If it did, some fanatical Muslims might have been able to mow down the editors of Charlie Hebdo For drawing cartoons of Muhammed. Luckily for them, they live in a “civilized” country with “common sense” gun laws.

    1. Yup.

  37. “let me be clear” Bo
    Right after he says this catch phrase…expect total bullshit to vomit from his mouth.

    1. Barack Obama…BO…*gears working overtime *goes to chalkboard and draws nonsense with a line straight to top of illuminati pyramid
      I KNOW!
      Barack Obama is actually the douche Bo that has been trolling Reason.
      *smugly goes out of bunker to buy more MRE packs.

  38. While there’s no nationwide crime wave, shootings have gone up in some cities. The police in Baltimore are apparently driving right past public fights. They’re much more cautious. The riots really did a number on immigrant businesses.

    So yeah, I don’t see gun control gaining support. Ammo sales were through the roof recently, it’ll probably go up again.

    I’m no cop hater, but it’s plain to see that they caused more deaths in the last few months than this single mass shooting. ISIS is self explanatory. Why do liberals push policies that result in police confrontation?

  39. Re: Tony,

    Across states, the more guns, the more homicides and suicides.

    That doesn’t correlate at all. Compare Texas [pro-gun state] with Illinois [anti-gun state].

    Besides this, you’re completely misrepresenting reality when arguing that the mere existence of guns compels more people to commit suicide.

    Furthermore, what is it with little red Marxians and guns? Do you still feel that your life lacks meaning because you can’t kill counterrevolutionaries like the Bolsheviks did, unopposed?

  40. More like a seasoned drama queen knows he won’t make any headway with gun control or anything else, but knows how to milk a tragedy for political gain.

  41. Obama – your un Constitutional wars don’t happened in advanced countries. Neither does your racist war on drugs.

  42. Everyone knows warm corpses are the best material to use when constructing a soap box.

    1. ^^^ This.

  43. South Carolina state law prohibits law abiding citizens from carrying a concealed firearm in a:

    (8) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body;

    Source: http://www.sled.sc.gov/documen…..Update.pdf

    Thus, unless church pastor Senator Clementa Pinckney (known for supporting some gun control measures) had given express permission to his congregation to carry firearms, they were all disarmed and defenseless.

    Compare this to another church shooting, where an armed volunteer shot and stopped the killer:

    Guard’s hands “didn’t even shake” as she shot gunman
    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7684728

  44. you make $27h…good for you! I make up to $85h working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45h to $85h?heres a good example of what I’m doing.
    BEST HOME BASE PROFIT DEAL??????? http://WWW.TIMES-REPORT.COM

  45. President Obama must have been in the bathroom three years ago and missed the news the day when Anders Behring Breivik killed over 100 people in Norway. BTW, Gun ownership is prohibited in Norway, unless one has officially documented a use for the gun.

  46. How many died from illegal guns this week in Chicago, Mr. President?

  47. the gun control that’s been advanced would not stop this sort of shooting. This guy PASSED their background check,even while out on bond for felony drug possession. Same for several other recent mass shootings;the killers lawfully obtained their guns,passing background checks. Other killers STOLE their guns,and no gun control law is going to prevent that.
    The gun grabbers,the “gun control” lobby KNOW this,they are deceptively working on a gun BAN,incrementally. Little by little,always demanding MORE “gun control”,because what they already passed wasn’t working. To them,there’s never enough “gun control”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.