http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/

Now they are reporting that he bought the firearm from a gun store with money from his dad.

Quote :

"One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it"

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2015 11:01:40 AM

Ignorance incoming.

But was he not a felon? Did I misremember?

6/19/2015 11:05:48 AM

Quote :

"Updated post: I'm still not sure exatly how he got the gun. Roof says that he bought it himself after his 21st birthday in April. But he was caught that felony charge in March, so he should not have been able to go into a store to buy the gun. It seems like it really was gifted to him, or he bought it privately."

NICS only reports convictions, or indictments for certain crimes, but lots of courts are bad about reporting things to NICS in a timely matter if at all so there is no reason to assume that he would not have been able to "legally" buy a gun from a store

6/19/2015 11:07:19 AM

Quote :

"What's the ratio of people who should be murdered by criminals because the person had no gun to defend himself versus people killed in extremely-rare mass shootings that you think would tilt the scales into the direction of allowing people to defend themselves?"

Uh this shit happens like once a year these days. Extremely rare would be once a century.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2015 11:09:05 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but he had not yet been convicted of a felony yet, just charged. I believe it is legal to still purchase a firearm if you have not been convicted.

6/19/2015 11:09:36 AM

^ That would be my guess, but I don't know how it works.

Quote :

"yet we are still talking about bans."

Yay another strawman.

6/19/2015 11:14:27 AM

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:19 AM. Reason : dp]

6/19/2015 11:14:27 AM

Quote :

"Uh this shit happens like once a year these days. Extremely rare would be once a century."

mass shooting events are still statistically rare when compared to the number of victims and occurrences of "regular" gun violence.

gun policy should be set by the "regular" gun violence and not statistically rare events that it is less likely to impact anyways. these kinds of mass shootings would be better controlled if we handled them like suicide outbreaks and the press agreed not to give attention to the perpetrator and turn them into celebrities.

6/19/2015 11:19:48 AM

7 mass shootings in 7 years doesn't seem like fluke occurrences that don't warrant media attention. GTFO

6/19/2015 11:22:42 AM

lol BUT IT'S THE MEDIA'S FAULT

6/19/2015 11:24:30 AM

WHAT YOU TALM BOUT? QUIT TRYIN' TO TAKE MAH GUNZ!

6/19/2015 11:25:50 AM

yes, the media is part of the problem

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120755264
https://suicideinfo.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WXg70KbEYsA=
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201208/when-suicides-come-in-clusters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Factors_in_suicide_reporting
http://www.livescience.com/45290-teen-suicide-clusters-news.html

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2015 11:27:18 AM

guns don't kill people; the over zealous media does. haha

TIL suicide clusters are the exact same thing as mass shootings.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:32 AM. Reason : unreal]

6/19/2015 11:28:03 AM

What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them
Rampage shooters crave the spotlight, and we should do everything possible to deprive them of it.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052

6/19/2015 11:32:15 AM

Thats a non-starter of an argument. As long as we have free press this stuff will be covered to death.

6/19/2015 11:36:10 AM

Quote :

"^has even one person in this thread mentioned a "ban"? "

Quote :

"I agree with him. The gun control discussion has gone on for far too long with no significant action, while more innocent people are murdered in mass shootings. At this point it doesnt look like we will ever control guns so why not just outlaw them completely? Easier to ban outright than try to figure out a method of legal ownership that keeps guns only in the hands of mentally stable, law-abiding citizens. Because really, how could we ever determine that reliably? "

All that aside, let's not pretend "gun control" is referring to anything other than a ban. It may be selective in who or what is banned, but it is still a ban.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM. Reason : l]

6/19/2015 11:37:58 AM

^^nah let's cover up the coverage of senseless violence and murderous rampages. it'll just upset the children



[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:39 AM. Reason : lulz]

6/19/2015 11:38:28 AM

The press was able to control how they report about suicides even though they were free

^no one is saying that something should be reported dipshit, it's about how it's reported and not sensationalizing it and giving the shooter the attention that they want

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:39 AM. Reason : dipshit]

6/19/2015 11:38:33 AM

do you not see the fundamental difference between the two? or are you just trolling?

6/19/2015 11:39:16 AM

Way to quote the one idiot who mentioned that, and afterwards got ridiculed for it.

Control-F strikes again!

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ^^^^]

6/19/2015 11:39:21 AM

Quote :

"All that aside, let's not pretend "gun control" is referring to anything other than a ban. It may be selective in who or what is banned, but it is still a ban."

this is a very dumb statement

6/19/2015 11:40:03 AM

Quote :

"do you not see the fundamental difference between the two? or are you just trolling?"

no, this is what needs to happen and what we need to have a discussion about. not every media outlet needs to sign on, media is sufficiently concentrated that if just the big broadcast and cable new conglomerations agree it will make a difference. this is what the experts are recommending.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM. Reason : V it already has worked before]

6/19/2015 11:41:26 AM

that's not how this works. that's not how any of this works

6/19/2015 11:42:13 AM

Quote :

" let's not pretend "gun control" is referring to anything other than a ban. It may be selective in who or what is banned, but it is still a ban."

So you're anti any gun control because some people have the resources to print guns at home. That's some pretty fucked logic dude. Were you also anti-gun control before that was a possibility for other reasons? j/k we already know the answer to that one.

6/19/2015 11:43:06 AM

i can build my own car, so no more speed limits

6/19/2015 11:45:27 AM

wars will stop happening if the press stops covering them

6/19/2015 11:47:06 AM

we wouldn't have invaded Iraq without the help of sensationalist media

6/19/2015 11:48:35 AM

To a point he is correct. Any gun control legislation will likely ban at least one person from legally acquiring a gun. Be it for mental health or criminal history. But that is of course missing the point completely and these type of restrictions already exist across most states.

6/19/2015 11:49:53 AM

You guys can have your guns, but can we get drugs, too, please?

I'd like to be feeling extra fantastic when a disgruntled employee shoots up the nail salon, and I can't move until my nails are dry.

6/19/2015 11:50:24 AM

You guys can have your guns, but can we get drugs, too, please?

I'd like to be feeling extra fantastic when a disgruntled employee shoots up the nail salon, and I can't move until my nails are dry.

6/19/2015 11:50:24 AM

i've never been to a nail salon, but i'm guessing part of the fun of it is the chem high you get just from being them. am i correct, Bridget?

6/19/2015 11:54:58 AM

Quote :

"Any gun control legislation will likely ban at least one person from legally acquiring a gun. Be it for mental health or criminal history. But that is of course missing the point completely and these type of restrictions already exist across most states."

What are you even talking about? It is illegal for most felons to own guns. That's a federal thing, not a state thing.

And even though a handful of states do have some incredibly narrow mental health checks in place, in something like 40 states the loophole exists where you can buy guns legally from non-FFL seller with no background/criminal/mental checks at all.

And yes, some people should be prevented [or sorry, BANNED] from obtaining firearms. I'd like to hear someone argue otherwise.

6/19/2015 12:01:41 PM

Quote :

"So you're anti any gun control because some people have the resources to print guns at home. That's some pretty fucked logic dude. Were you also anti-gun control before that was a possibility for other reasons? j/k we already know the answer to that one."

I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment. That's no secret. Nor does it make it any less farcical to try to ban something that is so easy to make at home. A black market will pop up to supply the wants of anyone who has a little cash just as it did with alcohol prohibition, meth prohibition, and anything else people want which can easily be produced at home. You can ignore it all you want, but those of us who choose to live in the real world need to consider the impact of these emerging technologies. Anyone who is actively thinking about the future would be wise to put some thoughtful consideration into my statement.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 12:03 PM. Reason : l]

6/19/2015 12:02:18 PM

we've considered your statement. it's still dumb.

6/19/2015 12:05:24 PM

So

Quote :

"I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment"

means you oppose any form of gun control in this country?

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM. Reason : I mean fuck. That's some shit.]

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 12:06 PM. Reason : kudos for being a purist i guess ]

6/19/2015 12:05:28 PM

I was just posting what his likely POV was. I'm in favor of restrictions but not bans fwiw.

Also there are tons of people who think ANY restriction is too much.

6/19/2015 12:08:13 PM

^^ Do you have anything to bring to the table in these discussions?

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 12:08 PM. Reason : l]

6/19/2015 12:08:23 PM

^ so whats your proposal Skack? You simply bash the idea of a ban (yes, that quote was mine) because it is "impossible" with today's technology, yet you bring nothing to the table for an alternative. Interestingly, that's what many of the 2A supporters do - trash any ideas that propose a restriction on gun availability without figuring out a solution that would be OK for them. And we wonder why Obama has to make these speeches at least once a year.

And improving mental health accessibility as a way to prevent gun violence is a complete farce and everyone knows it.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 12:17 PM. Reason : a]

6/19/2015 12:15:49 PM

DON'T CHU DAR TRY N TAKE MAH GUNZ!

6/19/2015 12:17:20 PM

saying that the presence of a black market means that no regulation should be considered is moronic, it would mean that we shouldn't try to regulate almost anything

6/19/2015 12:17:40 PM

^ now you are getting the small government idea...

There are already over 2,000 firearm laws on record. How about we actually start enforcing those as opposed to making more laws that restrict the 2A while actually doing nothing to prevent the tragedies they were proposed to stop.

6/19/2015 12:25:02 PM

(the laws are difficult to enforce because of loopholes)

6/19/2015 12:25:39 PM

Here are the current restrictions in SC as to who can purchase/possess a firearm:

Quote :

"South Carolina prohibits any person from possessing or acquiring a handgun if he or she: Has been convicted of a “crime of violence” in any court (“crime of violence” includes murder; manslaughter (except negligent manslaughter arising out of traffic accidents); rape; mayhem; kidnapping; burglary; robbery; housebreaking; assault with intent to kill, commit rape, or rob; assault with a dangerous weapon; or assault with intent to commit any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year); Is a fugitive from justice; Is a habitual drunkard; Is a drug addict; Has been adjudicated mentally incompetent; Is a member of a subversive organization; Is under age 18 (except for a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, active or reserve, National Guard, state militia or R.O.T.C., when on duty or training; and except for the temporary loan of a handgun for instruction under the immediate supervision of a parent or adult instructor); or Is a person who, by order of a circuit judge or county court judge of South Carolina, has been adjudged unfit to carry or possess a firearm (such adjudication may be made upon application by any police officer or prosecuting officer of South Carolina, or by the court on its own initiative)."

http://smartgunlaws.org/prohibited-purchasers-generally-in-south-carolina/

All seems rather reasonable to me, I am not exactly sure what additional legislation would prevent acts like this from occurring. I could see adding charged with a felony to the list but then you get into the whole innocent until proven guilty thing along with the fact that the databases are not always up to date with these things.

6/19/2015 12:28:14 PM

Skack sounding just like this guy

6/19/2015 12:35:31 PM

NICS includes indictments, but there needs to be a mandate to report in a timely matter (and the mandate needs to be funded to allow that to be possible)

6/19/2015 12:36:39 PM

Quote :

"All that aside, let's not pretend "gun control" is referring to anything other than a ban. It may be selective in who or what is banned, but it is still a ban"

Things that are currently banned:
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Driving a car
Voting
Riding roller coasters

6/19/2015 12:42:55 PM

The Virginia Tech shooter was able to legally buy and order his guns, he just didn't disclose the mental health treatment he was receiving.

In cases like these, when it isn't a "spur of the moment" case, and the shooter is planning to do it and kill himself after, its really impossible to prevent them from getting guns and doing damage.

I think the first issue is brain-washed racist-ass nazi-hicks, then mental health issues.

6/19/2015 12:45:50 PM

This just in...

If you can't do something with a 100% effectiveness rate you shouldn't do it at all.

6/19/2015 12:48:08 PM

We should treat him like any terrorist.

Find out how he became so radicalized, find the source of the radicalization, and see what could have been done to intervene.

6/19/2015 12:48:43 PM

Quote :

"NICS includes indictments, but there needs to be a mandate to report in a timely matter (and the mandate needs to be funded to allow that to be possible)"

I see no reason anyone would be against this.

Quote :

"This just in... If you can't do something with a 100% effectiveness rate you shouldn't do it at all."

It isn't that, it is the fact that basically any proposed gun control legislation of the past would do no good in preventing these kinds of tragedies from happening. Passing legislation for the sake of passing legislation and making yourself feel all warm and fuzzy inside is pointless if it does not address the issue.

Something like what dtownral mentioned is a step in the right direction and is the kind of thing that should be proposed rather than a completely irrational, emotional response.

[Edited on June 19, 2015 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2015 12:55:21 PM