Rick Perry referred to it was an "accident" and probably involved overuse of prescription drugs: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-charleston-shooting-accident-due-drug-use-manipulated-obama-ban-guns
Michael Savage thought it might be drugs, too. Or maybe a government assassin: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/michael-savage-maybe-charleston-shooter-was-set-loose-government
But Rick Santorum said it was all about attacks on religious liberty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/18/rick-santorum-reacting-to-charleston-shooting-denounces-assaults-on-our-religious-liberty/
Fox & Friends agreed, it might very well be part of the ongoing attacks on Christians: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/fox_and_friends_on_charleston_shooting_it_s_extraordinary_that_they_re_calling.html
Regardless of the motivation, we know why it turned out as tragic as it did … because the church was a "gun-free zone": http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/18/gun-free-zones-easy-target-for-killers.html
Brian Fischer confirms the shooting took place because it was a "gun-free zone": https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/611530746625421312
Fox & Friends is definitely behind the idea that more guns would have averted the tragedy: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/fox-amp-friends-exploits-south-carolina-church/204046
Mike Huckabee definitely thinks the prayer group should have been packing: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-charleston-shooting-couldve-been-prevented-if-church-members-were-armed
Yup, no question that it was because the church was a "gun-free zone": http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lott-botches-sc/204052
And one NRA board member makes it clear that it was actually the fault of the killed pastor of the church because of his support for gun control laws: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/nra-board-member-blames-murdered-reverend-for-d/204057
It surely had nothing to do with why a guy would wear a jacket with the flags of white-minority-government Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa on it, nor how he was able to get a gun because of loopholes in the law in South Carolina. That's just crazy talk.
Can't be criticizing white people, Dave. You know the rules.
Personally, I think that the gun issue and the religious issue are both tangential to the real issue here. Presumably the reason that he chose a black church, rather than another black institution, is because the church is prominent in the black community.
The whole thing about giving him a bullet proof vest after his arrest is troubling.
America, where black children holding toy guns are shot dead, while white men who have just killed nine people aren't even handcuffed when being arrested. So why, again, do all these guys want black men to start carrying guns?
giving him a bulletproof vest seems entirely sane. Blaming this on a lack of guns in a church seems so sadly wrong I'd laugh if I weren't crying.
Saying if some of the church goers had guns they could have saved some of their lives is likely true and is not the same thing as saying it's the victims fault for not carrying them. Truth often hurts when you have the benefit of hindsight, there's almost always something different someone could have done to prevent something, that doesn't make it the victims fault. The congregation members couldn't have known they'd need a gun, they shouldn't have, but they did. Like it or not a gun could have saved lives if you think otherwise you are in denial.
It's nice to think that, in a moment of crisis (a stranger who's been sitting in the church during a prayer service steps up, pulls out pistol, and starts shooting) that the doughty parishioners would have drawn their own pieces and riddled him with bullets before anyone could be harmed.
Actual, real incidents show that while it;s possible that some might react, chances are most if not all would be paralyzed with surprise. It's doubtful if all or most would have had the pistol available for a quick draw, and someone reaching for a piece (or a guard, had here been one) would probably be the first or next target.
And given other precedent, it's just as likely that had the parishioners been armed, one or more of them would have been hit by friendly fire, or that most or all of their return fire would have gone wide. Look at statistics on police shootings as to how often, even at close range, they don't hit their target.
And all of that still leaves alone the chance that someone carrying a weapon will either accidentally or in a moment of anger use it on someone else.
Thinking that the members of the prayer group would have been all Dirty Harry over the shooter is being pretty much in denial, too.
They should execute that kid in the street in front of that church. If we actually followed the scripture we would know that the bible says that if a man sheds another man's blood by men shall his blood be shed.
It also says at the mouth of two or three witnesses. That shooter left witnesses and confessed to the shooting.
So if we truly want to put a stop to this type of hatred we follow the law of God.
And make a public example of the consequence of murder.
Yeah, killing more people will solve everything.
Following the commandments of God is righteousness.
Bet if we made a public example of the consequence of murder that saves lives.
No, sorry. The "commandments of God" may have worked to keep a gang of Bronze Age goat herders in line, but they're not for the twenty-first century. See for example Numbers 31:17. Repulsive and abhorrent.
+Colm Buckley typical anti Christ to take scripture out of context.
Please do enlighten me about the context. I'd love to hear about the context of mass murder and rape.
+Colm Buckley read it for yourself. But you hate the creator and his rules and don't have ears to hear the truth anyway.
I've read it. It does exactly what it says on the tin.
+James Pimental Jesus also suggested, in a capital case, that he who is without sin should cast the first stone — that the weight of the law should be executed only by someone who is in complete accordance with it.
I'm not suggesting, by extension, that the accused gunman should be simply urged to go and sin no more. But — arguably by Scripture, and I would say for better reasons besides — we do not need bound by the Old Testament civil law two thousand years later in the US.
+Dave Hill and that's why this country is the mess that it's in and Jesus is going to destroy this wicked nation!
When he returns
+James Pimental I'll have to agree with +Colm Buckley on Numbers 31:17 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers+31&version=NRSV for the full chapter). The issue starts in Numbers 22, but gets real in Numbers 25, before coming to a head in Numbers 31.
I don't see anything there that justifies to me mass slaughter, pillaging, and the sexual enslavement of girls, except for the claim that the Lord told them to do it.
If there is a contextual justification for it, please enlighten me.
+James Pimental So is your suggestion that we have plentiful sinless executioners to deal with criminals? Or that the nation should follow the laws of Bronze Age Israel?
+Dave Hill I agree it is nice to think of in hindsight. What is nice about the opposite line of thinking? Is it better to be unarmed and shot dead so as not risk an unlikely accident? How?
+Kevin Rieber To gauge that you'd need reliable statistics about gun shooting accidents and gun availability as part of suicides and impulse killings vs shooting incidents.
Or you could look at why had the shooter tried to buy a gun at a shop his background check would have prevented him, but a private family transfer gave him a gun without said background check being necessary.
Or, heck, you could look at why his friends thought it was okay for him to always be talking about sparking a race war and never thought to do anything about it.
Lots of ways to address this without having the prayer group all packing and watching any newcomer suspiciously in case he draws a piece.
+Dave Hill The bit about his friends casually re-telling how Roof spoke about his plans to shoot up a public place on more than one occasion makes me wonder… are these friends a) extremely dense, b) condoning his actions or c) a+b? Oh, Rick Perry and the Fox gun-toting bible-bashers need to get a grip on reality.
+Andre du Toit Or maybe that's how his circle of pals while away the hours in Charleston, talking big about starting a race war.
…More guns to stop a shooting? Sounds like handing out bags of heroin to solve a drug problem
+Trevor Plett so everyone in that church would have suddenly become a raving lunatic killer if they had their own guns?
I would certainly hope not. The theory is what I was speaking to. It sounds like short sightedness to me.
+Dave Hill That's a pretty non-constructive way to while away the time… 😀 Wars never accomplish anything. Be they race wars or the standard "A wants to take B's stuff" or "B offended A in some way" type wars…
+Trevor Plett no but it is what you are saying. You compared the hypothetical idea of the victims of this crime being armed with guns and able to protect themselves to giving someone with a substance abuse problem that substance. Intentionally or unintentionally you are implying that like the addict who can't handle a substance responsibly, all gun owners can't handle guns responsibly.
+Kevin Rieber I would say that having everyone armed would increase the number of accidental (and moment of passion) shootings dramatically, and be not all that effective stopping this sort of thing.
I think what +Trevor Plett was trying to say is that adding more guns to the mix is not likely to reduce gun violence, it's more likely to increase it.
+Dave Hill is correct. He's explained exactly my thoughts. The idea of more guns in a situation, simply exacerbates the issue. Perhaps a poor turn of phrase on my part and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have come from that.
+Trevor Plett This particular situation was a worst-case scenario — it would be difficult to think of what could turn out worse in this specific instance (if one of the parishioners returning fire had killed the lady who survived, for example). But in all other instances, the possibility that in case of a shooting that a "good guy with a gun" would be able to take down a "bad guy with a gun" (and just that person only) needs to be balanced against the likelihood of injury or death (or opportunity for suicide) from increased gun carries.
+Dave Hill i don't disagree. I suppose it's more a poke at the folks that feel this is the answer to most problems involving violence and killings. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it should be invoked. In some cases yes but certainly not as many as the NRA and supporters of such mentality believe.
If people carry less guns less gun violence happens.