Topic: South Carolina church shooting: Nine die in Charleston 'hate crime' (Read 3640 times)

I've heard very little coverage about church's burning in south.... Have anyone heard about this and what is behind it?

Oh I see, thats how it works is it? I point out a flaw in your logic the size of a watermelon, so then you just talk about something else like thats what you meant the whole time. Got another fallacy you are guilty of: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading


So you are scientific then? When you learned science, do you remember the lesson about correlation does not equal causation? Were the traffic deaths going down because of regulations... or because actual safety technology used to build vehicles has vastly improved?  Of course you just assume all these regulations are what made people safer. Good thing you are so scientific. Here is another real fallacy you are guilty of: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

Additionally, none of those regulations prevent people from getting access to a car in any way, they are simply punishments after the fact for breaking the law, therefore they don't prevent anything, and your analogy with gun ownership is not applicable. There are laws against murder. There are laws saying you need a insurance to drive, but that wont stop you from going on Craigslist and buying a car with zero regulation and running 20 people down.  Your so called safety measures operate 100% on deterrent. Too bad murderous psychopaths don't care about going to jail.  

Let's take a moment look at the effect strict motor vehicle laws have had on public safety:



Even with these laws protecting us in place, still we lost 32,719 Americans - enough to fill a football stadium - to car wrecks in 2013.

That number could easily be ten times larger, if we had unscientific morons crafting public safety policy.

In my city over 20,000 have already been injured or killed by cars so far this year (January - June 2015).

I love when naïve libertarians describe their dystopia with absolutely no irony.

An eye for an eye?  Very barbaric, I like it. Takes us ethically back in time nearly 4,000 years to the Hammurabi Code. I take it you are quite devout in your chosen religion?

You might be thinking about the shooting that happened in West Philly the same night where 10 people were also shot. The one in Detroit, an 18-month old and a 12-year old were both hit. But yeah, not many news channels ran those stories. They couldn't blame those shootings on white racism or the Confederate flag.

I heard about it, but only 1 died out of 12 shot, which doesn't fit the criminals union's narrative that "guns are only for killing" - despite most GSWs being non-fatal. I wonder if it was a drive-by spray at an upward angle, which is why no children were hit, and some partygoers prohibited from firearm possession returned fire in lawful self-defense, which is why nobody is talking to police (no incrimination for unlawful firearms possession).
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/21/us/detroit-birthday-party-shooting/index.html

Whats weird to me is that the second the shooting happened, news was all over the place. But there was a shooting in detroit yesterday at a children's birthday party, 11 were shot. And i bet no one heard about it

Agree, let's treat guns and cars the same, with no prior restraint infringements for either, just as sdp described. Harm an innocent with either your gun or your car, and you are destroyed.

On the other hand...

If all the standard laws were gradually converted into strong warnings, warnings which expressed strong punishment for those who harmed other people or damaged their property by breaking the warnings, and the warnings themselves were not sufficient cause for punishment, we could be free from the criminality of government people who use laws harmfully against us to enrich themselves. At the same time, those people who harmed someone or damaged his property, would be off the streets and out of society because of the harm or damage they did, not because of some warning that might or might not apply to their situation.

I don't care if you work on building an atom bomb in your garage. If you don't harm anybody or damage his property, who cares? In the case of the atom bomb, if you are near enough to making it work, there is a threat. If the threat is real, you should be stopped. But not for something like smoking a little pot or drinking a little booze. If you are dangerous in these ways, you will fail somewhere along the line, and you will be off the street and out of society.

Yes lets.


-No licenses for drivers.
-No car registration
-No mandatory car insurance.
-Education for misdemeanor offenses?  Probably a good idea for both.
-don't treat people badly because they drove while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs).

I think he was thinking his personal safety before did the action. If he shot gangsters, so I can say he would be shot back by the gangster friends and could die. He want to punish black people, but not to be killed by them. So the safer way was shot the innocent black people. I think he is a coward.



So what is main motive the terrorists make terror attacks? The terrorists hate US right? So we can say terrorists do "hate-crime" by your opinion 

But it is a hate-crime. Some people hate a community's ideology. That is hate.

A terrorist attack being called as 'Hate-Crime'!! Trying to fool people that no terrorist attacks can happen in US?

Actually, my chosen bureaucracy does a great deal to stop that. I'm a Champion level supporting member of Transportation Alternatives.

When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

I still don't understand what the neo-Nazi got from mowing down a bunch of elderly innocent people. He was complaining about black on white rapes, and yet 6 out of the 9 victims were female. If he really wanted to act against black on white rape, then he should have attacked gangsters belonging to the black gangs such as the Crips or the Bloods.

Hope that souls of those deceased will be laid to rest. No one deserves to die such a brutal way.

Interesting. A guess which major U.S. media outlet will be the first to run that story? Oh that's right, none of them!

"...I'mma shoot the university up and they all got 7 days to live..."


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33209654

Far be it from me to come off as a conspiracy theorist, but this whole thing just smells of false flag to me. If in fact it is true about the TPA thing getting voted on at the exact same time that Obama was delivering his usual race-baiting filled speech (do watch the video that JLynn171 posted for more details) then this is classic divide and conquer tactics that this administration, and yes, plenty of administrations before, have been utilizing all along. I mean, think about it, it is obvious how passionate people get when there is a white person, cop, etc. that kills black people, so what better to pull at the heartstrings of the public than some whacked out racists white boy shooting up a black church?

Then if you delve further into it, how long after the shooting occurred before certain politicians and public figures were screaming for gun control again? And this crap about the Confederate flag? Yeah, it has been used as a symbol of hatred for many years, but come on, now all of a sudden it's an issue for debate? I can tell you from experience that there are many, many people who either fly that flag or have one on a license plate or whatever that are not hate-filled racists hell bent on the extermination of the black race. It is either just one other topic of debate to keep the public in the blind about what the federal government is doing behind our backs, or it is yet another reason to cause racial strife and division to more easily control the public and strip away our rights.

Now I know someone will say, "what rights are being stripped away by banning the public display of the Confederate flag?" Well, how about free speech? Just because some people use it as a symbol of hatred does not mean that is what it represents to everyone else. Me personally, I view it as an important piece of our history which helped to shape our country into what it is today. I do agree that it does not belong flying on any state or capital buildings, but rather it belongs in museums of US history and the likes. But what some of these people are calling for is the complete erasure of the flag, and that is just wrong. I mean, there are people who view the American flag as a symbol of oppression and hatred. Should our American flag be banned as well? No, of course not.

This was a horrible act of hatred committed by a pathetic anti-social lunatic. What truly bothers me is when I read about members of the black community talking about how white people need to have a dialog about white crime. Sorry, but America suffers from a high crime rate as a whole. It is not limited to one race alone. My response to those people is maybe they should worry about the crimes committed by their own race before they try to call out the white race.

This is classic divide and conquer people.

Actually cars kill A LOT more people than guns. Too bad all your bullshit bureaucracy does nothing to stop that. Way to argue against yourself. BTW, polly want a cracker?