Mass Shooting At Black Church In South Carolina

[Terralthra]

Joun_Lord, white supremacists have been targeting black churches in America for centuries. Thinking of churches as safe spaces is ignoring the history of violent racist terrorism in this country.

Do I really have to do the math for you or would you like to just admit the above is bull shit. To be clear, the second part.

You know what? Go ahead and explain how it's bullshit.

[KroLazuxy_87]

I don't entirely agree with what Stewart said, mainly because I find his cynicism, his assumption that nothing will change, to be dangerous, foolish, and boring. His show these days seems to often come down to basically saying the World sucks, everyone's corrupt, and there's nothing we can do about it, now let's just laugh at the futility of hope. It irritates me because its useless and self-indulgent.

But I pretty much agree about this being a terrorist attack, and I loved his calling out of the Confederacy worship in the South.

I think you've pretty much nailed down why Stewart is leaving the show. He's lost hope, knows he's gotten too cynical, and just wants to get away from it all.

[Patroklos]

No, how about you prove your own bullshit. You can start by taking the number of black churches, divide it by the mumber of murderous attacks on them in say the last 30-40 years as you see fit, and compare that to the same for any other public venue you see fit and then explain why anyone should feel unsafe attending there church.

You are being a sensationalist asshat. No random black citizen has any reason to be scared it there church unless you think they should be similarly scared to use car or air travel. Or run with scissors for that matter. This was a horrific act but it is like everything else in context you scare mo geeing fuck. It's one thing for people directly affected to harbor such a fear however irrational, it's quite another for an uninvolved observer like you to peddle such.

[UnderAGreySky]

NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown

The NRA, the largest and most powerful gun advocacy group in the world, typically mutes itself after mass shootings, and demands that others follow suit out of respect for the dead. The group’s social-media accounts, normally used to promulgate weapons enthusiasm, fall silent.

On Friday, an NRA spokesperson hewed to that strategy, saying that the group would have no comment “until all the facts are known”.

“We are praying for the victims and their families and, given the tragic loss, we don’t think this is the time for a political debate,” spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the Guardian.

Board member Charles Cotton, however, strayed from the script late on Thursday, when he posted a comment online blaming the pastor killed in the South Carolina shooting, Clementa Pinckney, for the death of his eight congregants.

Cotton, who did not return a message left at his Houston-area law firm, pointed out on a Texas gun forum that Pinckney was a state senator who had voted against a law allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons without permits.

“Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton wrote. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

“Individual board members do not speak for the NRA,” Baker said.

The remark has since been deleted. The comment was unusually direct in blaming the victims of gun violence for gun violence.

(more at link but mostly filler)

[Joun_Lord]

NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown)

Not to defend the NRA, even as someone who supports gun rights I think they are a bunch of fucking corrupt assholes leaking shit everywhere, but in the interest of accuracy that should be "A NRA board member blames victims".

This isn't the whole NRA for once sounding like stupid shits but one guy who isn't empowered to speak for the whole organization. He's stating his own misguided and frankly insulting opinion. Now don't worry, I'm sure the NRA and probably Wayne LaPierre in particular will say something equally stupid and offensive soon.


Also, unrelated to NRA tomfoolery here is an article that touches on a bit of the view some have of churches being safe places.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... lture.html

[cmdrjones]

NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown)

Not to defend the NRA, even as someone who supports gun rights I think they are a bunch of fucking corrupt assholes leaking shit everywhere, but in the interest of accuracy that should be "A NRA board member blames victims".

This isn't the whole NRA for once sounding like stupid shits but one guy who isn't empowered to speak for the whole organization. He's stating his own misguided and frankly insulting opinion. Now don't worry, I'm sure the NRA and probably Wayne LaPierre in particular will say something equally stupid and offensive soon.


Also, unrelated to NRA tomfoolery here is an article that touches on a bit of the view some have of churches being safe places.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... lture.html

To be even MORE accurate, he was blaming ONE victim for something he actually did that had a tangential effect on the situation.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is no way to know that it would have had any significant effect. There is no way of knowing that this shooting would have been stopped or made less catastrophic if this one individual had espoused a different policy regarding guns.

This insane Right wing fantasy that if you allow guns some heroic citizen will stand up to gun down the killer (despite most people not being nuts who carry guns with them everywhere and most people not being trained for combat situations) is just that- a fantasy. A vulgar, vicious, self-indulgent fantasy.

[cmdrjones]

There is no way to know that it would have had any significant effect. There is no way of knowing that this shooting would have been stopped or made less catastrophic if this one individual had espoused a different policy regarding guns.

This insane Right wing fantasy that if you allow guns some heroic citizen will stand up to gun down the killer (despite most people not being nuts who carry guns with them everywhere and most people not being trained for combat situations) is just that- a fantasy. A vulgar, vicious, self-indulgent fantasy.

should I start linking to situations where active shooters were stopped by citizens with guns?

Come now Rom.... I stated the effect was tangential, at BEST it would have allowed the people there to POSSIBLY exercise their rights to self defense in an effective manner. They could have, and probably would have all died. Because he had the element of total surprise. Exercising the right to self defense doesn't guarantee anything other than the opportunity to defend yourself. The idea that the lack of a guarantee of victory is somehow a justification for banning the means to defend yourself is a fantasy. A laughable, pathetic, self flagellating fantasy.

[Terralthra]

No, how about you prove your own bullshit. You can start by taking the number of black churches, divide it by the mumber of murderous attacks on them in say the last 30-40 years as you see fit, and compare that to the same for any other public venue you see fit and then explain why anyone should feel unsafe attending there church.

You are being a sensationalist asshat. No random black citizen has any reason to be scared it there church unless you think they should be similarly scared to use car or air travel. Or run with scissors for that matter. This was a horrific act but it is like everything else in context you scare mo geeing fuck. It's one thing for people directly affected to harbor such a fear however irrational, it's quite another for an uninvolved observer like you to peddle such.

Well, here's a list of sixteen racist and terrorist attacks against black churches in just the past twenty years. What's your evidence that there is not a pattern of white supremacist terrorist attacks on black churches?

[The Romulan Republic]

There is no way to know that it would have had any significant effect. There is no way of knowing that this shooting would have been stopped or made less catastrophic if this one individual had espoused a different policy regarding guns.

This insane Right wing fantasy that if you allow guns some heroic citizen will stand up to gun down the killer (despite most people not being nuts who carry guns with them everywhere and most people not being trained for combat situations) is just that- a fantasy. A vulgar, vicious, self-indulgent fantasy.

should I start linking to situations where active shooters were stopped by citizens with guns?

In fairness, I don't doubt you can find at least an example or two. But there's still no way to know that it would have happened in this case. Nor am I convinced that it is common. Nor am I convinced that it should be, for that matter, because the average citizen is not trained for combat and things like "panicking" and "friendly fire" happen.

Come now Rom.... I stated the effect was tangential, at BEST it would have allowed the people there to POSSIBLY exercise their rights to self defense in an effective manner. They could have, and probably would have all died. Because he had the element of total surprise. Exercising the right to self defense doesn't guarantee anything other than the opportunity to defend yourself.

Indeed. Which is why asserting that there was an effect, even a tangential one, or that this victim is in any way responsible, is absurd and unprovable. And, of course, viciously insulting to the victim and those close to him.

The idea that the lack of a guarantee of victory is somehow a justification for banning the means to defend yourself is a fantasy. A laughable, pathetic, self flagellating fantasy.

Do you think you're clever?

If you read what I said carefully you may note that I never said anything like "...the lack of a guarantee of victory is somehow a justification for banning the means to defend yourself..." I merely noted that to blame this victim is wrong and that there is no way of knowing that a different policy would have made a difference.

Now, as it happens, I do believe its appropriate to have some limitations on guns. Not only is their no certainty a civilian with a gun will succeed, there is a real possibility they will make things worse.

[Joun_Lord]

To be even MORE accurate, he was blaming ONE victim for something he actually did that had a tangential effect on the situation.

I assume you are referring to the thing about the Pastor Senator dude voting against concealed carry laws? Well thats apparently bull yotz.

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-board-member- ... 31785.html

Now if you are referring to the guy not packing heat, well thats bullshit too. Not the "not packing heat" part because clearly he wasn't but the thing about it being his fault because he wasn't. That goes into the territory of victim blaming.

I believe someone should be allowed to carry a firearm to defend themselves should they feel they need to. I however don't think everyone should or needs to nor do I think its their fault when they get attacked and have nothing to defend themselves with but ineffectual laws that criminals totally will follow, totally. Its about the Pastor's fault the same as its the fault of a rape victim for being "too sexy" or a mugging victim for having money, which is to say its not their fault, its the fault of the people who violate or attack them.

You knows who's fault it is? The Roof guy who shot the Pastor and the 8 others. Not all gun owners, not the pastor guy, not the people who slapped together the weapon shooter dude used, not even the person that gave the weapon to shooter guy, Roof was the one who took it upon himself to kill people so its Roof's fault. Pastor guy wouldn't have needed a weapon to defend himself if the fucktard hadn't decided to kill him.

[Broomstick]

This goes to show how very Non-racist much of American society is, even with massive amounts of provocation, the oft predicted 'race war' fails to materialize.

No, it just shows that most white supremacists aren't inclined to mass murder.

Thankfully, most of the overt bigots and white supremacists are mostly hot air - they talk a lot, they're rude to non-whites they run into, but they don't actually go out an kill people.

That doesn't mean racism is absent in the US. On the contrary, covert racism is alive and well in the nation.

[cmdrjones]

This goes to show how very Non-racist much of American society is, even with massive amounts of provocation, the oft predicted 'race war' fails to materialize.

No, it just shows that most white supremacists aren't inclined to mass murder.

Thankfully, most of the overt bigots and white supremacists are mostly hot air - they talk a lot, they're rude to non-whites they run into, but they don't actually go out an kill people.

That doesn't mean racism is absent in the US. On the contrary, covert racism is alive and well in the nation.

Thoughts are thoughts, perhaps we should send all those badthinkers to a camp to re-educate them eh?

I am referring to people when actually tested show remarkable restraint... see: "The Amazing Racist"
Some of his stuff is probably staged, but, for instance when he goes to South Central LA in a KKK outfit, I was struck by how many warnings and opportunities to run away that the black men he approached gave him.

[cmdrjones]

To be even MORE accurate, he was blaming ONE victim for something he actually did that had a tangential effect on the situation.

I assume you are referring to the thing about the Pastor Senator dude voting against concealed carry laws? Well thats apparently bull yotz.

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-board-member- ... 31785.html

Now if you are referring to the guy not packing heat, well thats bullshit too. Not the "not packing heat" part because clearly he wasn't but the thing about it being his fault because he wasn't. That goes into the territory of victim blaming.

I believe someone should be allowed to carry a firearm to defend themselves should they feel they need to. I however don't think everyone should or needs to nor do I think its their fault when they get attacked and have nothing to defend themselves with but ineffectual laws that criminals totally will follow, totally. Its about the Pastor's fault the same as its the fault of a rape victim for being "too sexy" or a mugging victim for having money, which is to say its not their fault, its the fault of the people who violate or attack them.

You knows who's fault it is? The Roof guy who shot the Pastor and the 8 others. Not all gun owners, not the pastor guy, not the people who slapped together the weapon shooter dude used, not even the person that gave the weapon to shooter guy, Roof was the one who took it upon himself to kill people so its Roof's fault. Pastor guy wouldn't have needed a weapon to defend himself if the fucktard hadn't decided to kill him.

Agreed to a point.... the pastor and everyone else there needed a gun to defend themselves because guns exist, they just wouldn't have needed to USE them if asshat hadn't decide to attack them.

[Joun_Lord]

Agreed to a point.... the pastor and everyone else there needed a gun to defend themselves because guns exist, they just wouldn't have needed to USE them if asshat hadn't decide to attack them.

No, they'd needed some asshole to not shoot them.

Despite what our enlightened Euro-commie-peon cousins think, the US is not the Wild West were everyone need to be packing heat to defend themselves from assholes armed with automatic assault weapons with assault clips. Most people are never going to need a gun to defend themselves, though this isn't me implying that because they probably won't need one they shouldn't be allowed the right access to one anymore then I think I someone should be denied the right to marry (gay or straight or whatever) just because they probably won't ever get hitched if that makes any sense at all.

Guns exist, yes, but the only reason why they are dangerous is because of asshole like this Roof guy abusing the weapons (so clearly we need to punish the millions of people who don't abuse their weapons, thats just logical). The pastor and his groups shouldn't HAVE to need to defend themselves, they shouldn't have to carry a gun, knife, pepper spray, or whatever anti-attack device people in countries were the arms of bears are cut off use. Now its good to have those things awailable just in case some shit goes down, thats life and sometimes bad shit happens and its good to be prepared but still I'm not going to bust the balls of someone who decided they don't feel like being so paranoid about assholes they need to carry a weapon errywhere.

The fact is the fault lies entirely on Roof for what he did. Yeah the pastor could have probably been armed and stopped him but he shouldn't have needed to. To use some probably shitty allegories (as if I have any other kind), its like saying that every woman needs to carry a rape whistle and pepper-spray because rapists exist or people need to carry their money in their shoes because muggers exist. Yeah its probably good for them to do so but they shouldn't need to and its not their fault if they don't feel the need to change their lives to do those things in the unlikely event those bad things happen to them. Nor is it their fault when the bad things happens to them and they aren't prepared, its the fault of the asshole or assholette who doesn't take no for an answer or the shitbag who was never taught that stealing is bad.

[Patroklos]

No, how about you prove your own bullshit. You can start by taking the number of black churches, divide it by the mumber of murderous attacks on them in say the last 30-40 years as you see fit, and compare that to the same for any other public venue you see fit and then explain why anyone should feel unsafe attending there church.

You are being a sensationalist asshat. No random black citizen has any reason to be scared it there church unless you think they should be similarly scared to use car or air travel. Or run with scissors for that matter. This was a horrific act but it is like everything else in context you scare mo geeing fuck. It's one thing for people directly affected to harbor such a fear however irrational, it's quite another for an uninvolved observer like you to peddle such.

Well, here's a list of sixteen racist and terrorist attacks against black churches in just the past twenty years. What's your evidence that there is not a pattern of white supremacist terrorist attacks on black churches?

Whether there is a patern or not is irrelevant, there is a much larger and frequent patern of criminals robing banks yet only an idiot would consider it unsafe to go deposit a check at one.

Your claim is that churches are not safe places, so prove it statistically. Just for your information according to wiki there are over 12,000 AME churches alone (the denomination of the Charleston shooting). Some of those are not in the US but the vast majority of AME membership is located here. That's only one predominately black denomination, not to mention there are many majority black congregations that are not from historiclly black denominations.

But let's take your 16 instances and let's charitably just use 7000 uS located AME churches. What's that give us for the daily chance of suffering violence (note your 16 also includes non arson vandalism) at one of these locations in those 20 years?

The simple fact is as horrendous as individual acts might be statistically there is no individual danger for the black congregate attending their place of worship unless you define a safe place as a risk of violence so low that no place anywhere can be considered safe. you saying such is as stupid as fear mongering over Islamoc terrorism in the US.

Just a note the National Baptist Convention, a historically black denomination, has 30+K congregations with most located in the US. Mull that over when crunching the above numbers.

[Terralthra]

My claim is that black churches have been targets of white supremacist terrorism for two centuries. They have been and continue to be. You have offered exactly zero argument against that point, so I'm done here unless you do. I'm thoroughly uninterested in your apologia.

[Patroklos]

Awesome but irrelevant because I clearly stated that was not the claim of yours being challenged. You stated this:

Thinking of churches as safe spaces is ignoring the history of violent racist terrorism in this country.

Are you denying you made this statement? Are you denying that it's intent was to say black churches are not safe places now?

You are a lying fuck who is getting his rocks off engaging in baseless fear mongering. On the backs of the recent dead to boot.

[Ralin]

Awesome but irrelevant because I clearly stated that was not the claim of yours being challenged. You stated this:

Thinking of churches as safe spaces is ignoring the history of violent racist terrorism in this country.

Are you denying you made this statement? Are you denying that it's intent was to say black churches are not safe places now?

You are a lying fuck who is getting his rocks off engaging in baseless fear mongering. On the backs of the recent dead to boot.

I think you're maybe misinterpreting what he's saying. Pretty sure he doesn't mean black churches are substantially more dangerous than, uh, libraries or malls or movie theaters or synagogues. I think he means their not safe spaces in the sense that they're safer than similar gathering places or that violently attacking one is especially unusual or taboo.

You're talking past each other, basically.

[SCRawl]

Yeah, this has gone far enough with this little sub-argument.

Terralthra, your statement:

...white supremacists have been targeting black churches in America for centuries. Thinking of churches as safe spaces is ignoring the history of violent racist terrorism in this country.

...is, to be charitable, imprecise. The first part is fine -- well, it's not fine, but it's accurate -- but the second part is not supportable. Churches in the U.S. are not unsafe places using any reasonable interpretation of those words.

Patroklos is technically correct in what he points out, but really, he's just picking nits. If you're going to pick an argument and go to the wall with it, this is not the one.

If you really want to have this discussion, let me know. I'll split out those posts and you can hash it out there. I think that this topic has been derailed enough by it so far.

[Terralthra]

My point was, as Ralin pointed out, not that black churches are any less safe than malls or other common social gathering places - though they're substantially less safe from terrorism than, say, marathons or airplanes - but that they are hardly sanctuaries, the violating of which is an utter moral taboo, as Joun_Lord seemed to mean by his comment, "A church is a safe place. A place that people go to have togetherness and to be closer to god..."

Understanding my statement as an assertion that churches are substantially more dangerous than any other easily attacked public place is at best a misinterpretation.

[Lord Revan]

IIRC churches, shrines , temples and so on have never been "safe" in a "nobody can hurt me here" way, not even from people who share your religion. IIRC one of the main reasons the sanctuary system worked at all was that the clergy (be it catholic church or pagan) tended to be so powerful that stepping on their toes wasn't worth the effort in alot of cases.

[Ritterin Sophia]

A number of things occur to me as I've watched this unfold: If this had been a Muslim this would've been referred to as a terrorist attack. It should be now as it was clearly meant to terrorize at least a portion of our society into complicity and inflame further attacks against them, it can be both a hate crime and a terrorist action, but no one calls it that. I'm reminded about how after the FBI and DHS reports cited Right-wing domestic terrorism as the largest terrorist threat, the GOP voted to defund the DHS to the point a single man was in charge of monitoring for domestic terrorism threats. Nor do I hear the same incessant repetition of "thug" in this case that is oft heard when speaking of young black men, even though the term is just as applicable here.

[Metahive]

I think Juan Cole summed it up well:

Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a
guaranteed promotion.

4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/top-ten ... thers.html

[Simon_Jester]

Essentially yes.

I remember back around 1999, me and some friends had set up a rather naive near-future campaign based on the idea of a massive terrorist threat to the US... set in 2020 which is not so far away as all that. And while we were, again, rather comically naive in some ways, almost without thinking we predicted that right-wing domestic terrorism was more likely to be a nation-disrupting threat.

I wonder if we were right, simply because foreigners are easier to rally against, because you don't have to deal with idiots (left or right wing) repeating Kerensky's mistake of saying "no enemies to the left" and refusing to let the machinery of the state respond effectively to provocations by a party more left-wing than themselves.

[Corresponding stupidity on the right also exists and has a lot to do with, for instance, why the German elite of the early 1930s brought Hitler into power]

Agreed to a point.... the pastor and everyone else there needed a gun to defend themselves because guns exist, they just wouldn't have needed to USE them if asshat hadn't decide to attack them.

No, they'd needed some asshole to not shoot them.

Despite what our enlightened Euro-commie-peon cousins think, the US is not the Wild West were everyone need to be packing heat to defend themselves from assholes armed with automatic assault weapons with assault clips. Most people are never going to need a gun to defend themselves...

The problem is, if you decide to not carry one on the grounds that you probably won't need one... well, someone like this can show up and easily make you into one of his many, many casualty statistics.

Guns exist, yes, but the only reason why they are dangerous is because of asshole like this Roof guy abusing the weapons (so clearly we need to punish the millions of people who don't abuse their weapons, thats just logical)...

Except that there really aren't a lot of choices here. Turning society into an armed camp makes it harder for random murderers to make you a victim- but it increases the death rate from suicides and impulse killings. In a society where most people are unarmed, but a few people decide to be massively violent and have easy access to weapons, you get... this.