Multiple people killed by gunman in an American church

12467

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Shardlake wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I guess the American reaction to this will be to supply all priests in the country with guns. :)) Everything but making gun laws stricter... like the rest of the world has...

    Only the rest of the western world.

    I always find ironic that when such massacre happens, the easy access to firearms by the murderer is NOT counted as one of the things that played a role in it.

    I believe it's because culturally it's seen as a constitutional right. That's different from in any other country. That is the issue. It's enshrined in their constitution. One can look to the 'regulated' comment etc. but that is details......and with any written document sometimes the details are lost on people. Only the overall thrust is remembered, and that is the right to bear arms

    The NRA and weak politicians don't help either.


    The constitution was made by a bunch of slave owners hundreds of years ago. Clinging to it like some holy text is just absurd!

    I agree. Practically speaking, it should be amended to reflect new realities. That's never going to happen though as the country is increasingly polarized and some commentators/politicians play to the differences rather than the similarities.

    Ironically, the only thing that seems to really unify the country these days is a fear of terrorism from outside (and interestingly, not from within), and this further strengthens the nutter's hands (I need my weapon for self-defense because I may be attacked).

    Easier to have the external bogeyman I guess.

    Can you imagine what would be acceptable if we hadn't updated the Magna Carta?

    This has been changed and updated many times yet America still lives by the same constitution that was drafted up many years ago.

    Yeah you had the right to bear arms, they were single shot pistols not fecking automatic weapons the fact that civilians are allowed to have weapons that appear in the average action movie isn't only absurd it's downright dumb and that comment by that NRA member about the deceased preacher was offensive.

    It's scary to think how influential the United States is when some yahoo like that has a platform to make such a absurd utterly asinine statement as that.

    I'm just glad I don't live in your utterly ridiculous country!

    Just to clarify @Shardlake, I'm not American, although I've lived and worked there in the past and keep abreast of the politics there, as it affects us all - and it's beneficial for my work.

    The gun culture that is prevalent in some parts of the US was the most shocking thing to me, as someone who grew up in the UK. I think many first generation immigrants are terrified by that aspect, especially those with young children.

    I have family in L.A., and when I first visited many years ago I was shocked by the way they lived...in a state of fear almost about their kids going out at certain times of the night and about certain parts of the city. That was something that was indeed surprising to me. Now, I realize that inner city strife is common in some large US cities, and so it's a fact of life.
  • On the subject of arming congregations, I can only wonder: what would Jesus pack? (Hint: he wouldn't.)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2015 Posts: 17,691
    A guy I used to work with once had me to his house & showed me a rifle (he had it all locked up & had to use two keys to access it) and he told me it goes semi-auto so in case his home was invaded he could take out several goons at once. I asked him how exactly he'd do that since he'd take minutes to get to it ASSUMING he woke up at the first hint of a noise... ahhh, the fantasies... :))
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    ^Semi auto or full auto?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2015 Posts: 17,691
    ^Semi auto or full auto?
    I'm not a gun dude, I think he meant it would a bunch of bullets with each trigger pull. I may be wrong about that.
    Correction: he meant he could fire a bullet with each trigger pull until he unloaded the clip.

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    On the subject of arming congregations, I can only wonder: what would Jesus pack? (Hint: he wouldn't.)

    I'm no more of a biblical scholar than a constitutional one, but the idea of using lethal force to defend a congregation does seem inconsistent with Jesus' example.
  • As having the gun in the house mean the intruders will have access to a gun even if they don't own one (a big reason not to have a gun in your house outside the US :) ), it's quite surprising no one has created a "palm reading" gun that would work only for his owner !
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    it's quite surprising no one has created a "palm reading" gun that would work only for his owner !
    =))
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Electronic DNA coded bullets are the future ;)
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Him studying the Bible does not surprise me in the least. The "good book" is not exactly a shining example of peace, love and understanding. So the killer embraced its sectarian aspects. No surprise. He is the Christian equivalent of a Taliban, plain and simple.

    Why would you make this baseless assumption? Maybe take 5 minutes to learn the story before you attempt to hijack yet another thread as a platform for your obsessive anti-Christian bleatings. The guy was just hanging out with his targets, biding his time until he decided to make his move.
    I guess the word "church" in the thread title though is catnip for you.


    "The "good book" is not exactly a shining example of peace, love and understanding. So the killer embraced its sectarian aspects"
    Again you are trying to derail yet another thread for your anti-Christian agenda which clearly obsesses you.
    Just fyi, there are plenty of members here that would not ipso facto embrace your statement above as some sort of goes-without-saying observation. The mi6 message board, as much as you might want to make it so, is not some backwater board or platform for hammering away at a morally superior atheist world view.
    Such triumphalism isn't consistent with our pluralistic western societies- actually more in stark opposition I would say. Heck it isn't even consistent with Ian Flemings writing.
    Maybe such trite remarks are comforting to you, which speaks to an underlying immaturity or insecurity I think, on your part.
    Most I realize, just ignore you in the interests of civility, as they are here to talk Bond, not lecture on their moral superiority.

    However as you seem determined to derail yet another thread, let me just add that
    re "The "good book" is not exactly a shining example of peace, love and understanding."
    There are plenty on this board, not to mention the broader western world who would suggest the opposite is true.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I am against the death penalty and remain so for this case. His death would bring nothing. It will not bring the murdered back, neither will it bring any kind of closure to the family of the victims. Vengeance is not justice, even and especially in this case. Neither will it be a deterrent. Put him away and humiliate him by showing his backward ideology being trampled to the ground as it should be.

    Now here actually, I can agree with you but I would make the case much differently.
    Capital punishment IMO is yes not an effective deterrent. But there is also the not-so-small matter of killing the wrongly accused, which does happen in America.
    If the law is on the books, it can and will get abused. Innocents might be railroaded to the gallows.
    There is no doubt of guilt in this case, however the law cannot be written so as to only accomodate the absolutely positively guilty.

    Seeing as you have attempted to commandeer yet another thread to beat your anti-Christian drum (and this time with blissful ignorance of the actual details of the story) I will say I could make a religious argument against capital punishment, precisely a Catholic argument, but I won't. I don't think its helpful, as I can respect that others might be informed by their own beliefs, Christian, agnostic or otherwise to argue the case FOR capital punishment.
    I don't think its helpful to assert a morally superior stance as you are want to do.
    We are all entitled to throw our cards on the table.
    Deal with it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Every citizen should have his own atom bomb. That would bring peace.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I thought I should post a link to this lunatic's point of view and ideology here. It's quite chilling:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/20/dylann-roof-s-racist-manifesto-is-ignorant-and-chilling.html

    While we don't know if he had religious motivations, one should not discount the fact that many of the white supremacist groups in the US (including the Council of Conservative Citizens, who influenced Roof) cloak their teachings/world view under an erroneous & convenient misinterpretation of Christian theology, including the "Christian Identity" movement. In this respect, they are similar to the Muslim extremists who have hijacked Islam for nefarious purposes.

    So while we are not yet aware if a misunderstanding of religion played a part in these killings, it has definitely had a large impact on white supremacy in the US, along with Nazism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christian_Identity
  • Posts: 14,844
    timmer wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Hum studying the Bible does not surprise me in the least. The "good book" is not exactly a shining example of peace, love and understanding. So the killer embraced its sectarian aspects. No surprise. He is the Christian equivalent of a Taliban, plain and simple.

    Why would you make this baseless assumption? Maybe take 5 minutes to learn the story before you attempt to hijack yet another thread as a platform for your obsessive anti-Christian bleatings. The guy was just hanging out with his targets, biding his time until he decided to make his move.
    I guess the word "church" in the thread title though is catnip for you.


    "The "good book" is not exactly a shining example of peace, love and understanding. So the killer embraced its sectarian aspects"
    Again you are trying to derail yet another thread for your anti-Christian agenda which clearly obsesses you.
    Just fyi, there are plenty of members here that would not ipso facto embrace your statement above as some sort of goes-without-saying observation. The mi6 message board, as much as you might want to make it so, is not some backwater board or platform for hammering away at a morally superior atheist world view.
    Such triumphalism isn't consistent with our pluralistic western societies- actually more in stark opposition I would say. Heck it isn't even consistent with Ian Flemings writing.
    Maybe such trite remarks are comforting to you, which speaks to an underlying immaturity or insecurity I think, on your part.
    Most I realize, just ignore you in the interests of civility, as they are here to talk Bond, not lecture on their moral superiority.

    However as you seem determined to derail yet another thread, let me just add that
    re "The "good book" is not exactly a shining example of peace, love and understanding."
    There are plenty on this board, not to mention the broader western world who would suggest the opposite is true.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I am against the death penalty and remain so for this case. His death would bring nothing. It will not bring the murdered back, neither will it bring any kind of closure to the family of the victims. Vengeance is not justice, even and especially in this case. Neither will it be a deterrent. Put him away and humiliate him by showing his backward ideology being trampled to the ground as it should be.

    Now here actually, I can agree with you but I would make the case much differently.
    Capital punishment IMO is yes not an effective deterrent. But there is also the not-so-small matter of killing the wrongly accused, which does happen in America.
    If the law is on the books, it can and will get abused. Innocents might be railroaded to the gallows.
    There is no doubt of guilt in this case, however the law cannot be written so as to only accomodate the absolutely positively guilty.

    Seeing as you have attempted to commandeer yet another thread to beat your anti-Christian drum (and this time with blissful ignorance of the actual details of the story) I will say I could make a religious argument against capital punishment, precisely a Catholic argument, but I won't. I don't think its helpful, as I can respect that others might be informed by their own beliefs, Christian, agnostic or otherwise to argue the case FOR capital punishment.
    I don't think its helpful to assert a morally superior stance as you are want to do.
    We are all entitled to throw our cards on the table.
    Deal with it.

    I have misread a previous comment hence my reaction. Beside I wouldn't be triumphalist over such a tragedy. Neither was I over the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. You can be right and not be happy about it.

    Regarding capital punishment, I'm well aware that not only the Catholic Church, but also some very conservative Christians are against it and kudos to them.
  • Posts: 14,844
    And I may also add from personal experience that I know of quite a few pro death penalty atheists. Not a majority but they exist.
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I have misread a previous comment hence my reaction. Beside I wouldn't be triumphalist over such a tragedy. Neither was I over the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. You can be right and not be happy about it.
    I wouldn't accuse you of being right about much of anything when it comes to an understanding of religion- Christianity in particular.
    You miss my point as usual particularly my use of the word triumphal.

  • Posts: 14,844
    timmer wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I have misread a previous comment hence my reaction. Beside I wouldn't be triumphalist over such a tragedy. Neither was I over the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. You can be right and not be happy about it.
    I wouldn't accuse you of being right about much of anything when it comes to an understanding of religion- Christianity in particular.
    You miss my point as usual particularly my use of the word triumphal.

    You make it sound like I've been an atheist all my life. I was a Catholic and was educated as such.
  • Posts: 338
    I've always been puzzled by Americans love for violence, yet aversion to sex. Perhaps it is something to do with the Founding Fathers?

    I have read somewhere that in the 1960s, the Bond films got into trouble with the UK censors for too much violence (hence the quip) and from the US censors for sex (hence the nudity in DN and FRWL were not repeated)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Troy wrote: »
    I've always been puzzled by Americans love for violence, yet aversion to sex. Perhaps it is something to do with the Founding Fathers?

    While it certainly does not characterize every, or even most Americans, I believe this cultural phenomenon is a remnant of the Pilgrims, combined with the country's somewhat violent, wild formative years.

    It's certainly a peculiar thing, when viewed from outside. The furor over Bill Clinton's relatively minor (from my perspective at least) personal indiscretions while in the Oval office comes to mind, although he should not have lied about it...
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Ludovico wrote: »
    You make it sound like I've been an atheist all my life. I was a Catholic and was educated as such.

    Right and your understanding of same is virtually nil. You prove it everytime you pontificate on your self-righteous superior world view.
    The fact that you think an "education" in same is somehow what achieves an understanding of Christianity, is actually quite revealing.
    A man of humble heart, with no formal education in anything, pushing a plough can have a better understanding of Christianity than you do. In fact, would.


  • Posts: 14,844
    timmer wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    You make it sound like I've been an atheist all my life. I was a Catholic and was educated as such.

    Right and your understanding of same is virtually nil. You prove it everytime you pontificate on your self-righteous superior world view.
    The fact that you think an "education" in same is somehow what achieves an understanding of Christianity, is actually quite revealing.
    A man of humble heart, with no formal education in anything, pushing a plough can have a better understanding of Christianity than you do. In fact, would.


    Now who is pontificating? I was a believer. I read the Bible, prayed, loved God, been there done that got the t-shirt. I came to disbelief because I actually started questioning godly claims rather than accepting them out of blind faith. But hey you can claim righteousness and humility at the same time.

    For the record I already said I was wrong about the killer being a Christian fundamentalist. Not all supremacists are although the KKK boasts to be a Christian organization.
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 12,837
    I think that killing him wouldn't achieve anything, besides stooping to his level. It's not an effective deterrent, it's essentially revenge, and my initial reaction is to say I'm against that. There is a part of me that thinks people like this should get what they deserve, which I think is probably just human nature, but I think not giving into these instincts is part of what makes us better than sick bastards like this guy (along with us not being disgusting, twisted, pathetic, stupid racist pieces of shit).

    Either way this is a real tragedy, and I think America definitely need stronger gun control laws regardless of what some amendment from a constitution drawn up hundreds of years ago (I like to think that society has become a lot more advanced since then, I mean the constitution was drawn up before slavery was abolished in America ffs) says. No offense to the yanks on here but the US gun control laws are ridiculous and in desperate need of reforming. And don't give me the whole "guns don't kill people" thing. Yes, people kill people. And guns make it much easier for people to kill people, especially if they're stupidly easy to get. I'm sorry but a country where any civilian can get their hands on an assault rifle, legally, is a country that's f***ed up in terms of gun control laws.
    timmer wrote: »
    However as you seem determined to derail yet another thread, let me just add that
    re "The "good book" is not exactly a shining example of peace, love and understanding."
    There are plenty on this board, not to mention the broader western world who would suggest the opposite is true.

    I don't think @Ludivico ever denied that there are people such as yourself who disagree with him, he's just giving his opinion on the subject and to be honest I agree with him. There has been a lot of hatred, atrocities and death throughout history because of the bibles teachings and can you honestly say that a book which, for example, calls homosexuality a sin, is a book full of peace, love and understanding?

    I understand that there are positive messages (love thy neighbour and all the rest of it) in there, and I understand that religion is of great comfort to some people. But, and this also applies to the Quran and others, these teachings are outdated. They were written thousands of years ago ffs.

    I'll say what I've said before on here, I think my adoptive mum, a lovely women who I look up to a lot, has the right idea about this. She's Catholic, not very religious, but she goes to church at Easter and she believes in God and Jesus and everything. But she doesn't have a problem with gay people, or abortion, or sex before marriage, or contraception, etc. She doesn't let her religion take away control her life or take away from her common sense or her basic human decency. She realizes that the bible was written thousands of years ago in a time that's very different to todays society and that a lot of its teachings are massively outdated and actually pretty horrible (saying being gay is wrong) and that some of it is just plain scientifically wrong (eg-Genesis, complete bollocks, there's proof that evolution is a fact). Same with my grandparents (although they're not Catholic Christians, they're Pentecostals, which I think are Protestants? I dunno but again it's the same idea, they don't blindly follow the bible because they know it's outdated).

    I think that's the example all religious people should follow. By all means believe in a higher power if it offers comfort to you but don't blindly follow religion no matter what and recognize that your religion is based on teachings from thousands of years ago which means a lot of it will have since been proven wrong.
  • Posts: 14,844
    The other issue with death penalty in this instance is that it would make him a martyr for some.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The other issue with death penalty in this instance is that it would make him a martyr for some.

    True. That's exactly what I said when the Boston bomber was sentenced to death recently, extremists like him are just gonna see him as a martyr for their messed up cause and it's just going to inspire more of them.
  • Posts: 7,502
    I don't think @Ludivico ever denied that there are people such as yourself who disagree with him, he's just giving his opinion on the subject and to be honest I agree with him. There has been a lot of hatred, atrocities and death throughout history because of the bibles teachings and can you honestly say that a book which, for example, calls homosexuality a sin, is a book full of peace, love and understanding?


    Well... Maybe because the Bible IS full of peace, love and understanding? If you og through it with a magnifying glass you will find certain statements condemning homosexuality, yet you will find hundreds of pages saying that every human being is "equal in God's eyes", "born in his picture" (I don't know the correct English translation of that :) ). The Bible is full of contradicitng statements. That does not make it a book "of evil".

    Btw, wat do you think of Fleming and his views on homoexuality? ;)
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 12,837
    jobo wrote: »
    Btw, wat do you think of Fleming and his views on homoexuality? ;)

    Yes by todays standards he was homophobic (and racist) but that's not his fault. It's just the time he was alive in. Just like the bible. It was written thousands of years ago. But we as a society have moved on now and religious people should do too. James Bond doesn't go round claiming that gays and lesbians are "mixed up" people who only exist because we gave the vote to women anymore, because that's a ridiculously offensive and untrue view. James Bond has moved on from that, because 50 years have passed since then and people have realised that it's wrong. Christianity should move on from some of the bible teachings, because thousands of years have passed since then and people have realised that it's wrong.
    jobo wrote: »
    you will find certain statements condemning homosexuality, yet you will find hundreds of pages saying that every human being is "equal in God's eyes", "born in his picture" (I don't know the correct English translation of that :) ). The Bible is full of contradicitng statements. That does not make it a book "of evil".

    I never said it was a book of evil. It's just a very outdated book that some people take way too literally and adhere far too closely too. But I'm sorry, any book that says this

    "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

    Is not a book of peace, love and understanding. As I said that's understandable, as it was thousands of years old, but still, it isn't and shouldn't be considered a book full of peace, love and understanding, because of some (not all, I recognize that there are positive messages in there, like you mentioned) of the things it teaches, and for all the death that's happened because of that (the Crusades for example). There's peace love and understanding in there, sure, but there's also hate, prejudice and massively outdated teachings that have no place in todays world. But like I said, I'm not singling out the bible here, the same applies to the Qur'an and other religious texts.
  • Posts: 7,502
    jobo wrote: »
    Btw, wat do you think of Fleming and his views on homoexuality? ;)

    Yes by todays standards he was homophobic (and racist) but that's not his fault. It's just the time he was alive in. Just like the bible. It was written thousands of years ago. But we as a society have moved on now and religious people should do too. James Bond doesn't go round claiming that gays and lesbians are "mixed up" people who only exist because we gave the vote to women anymore, because that's a ridiculously offensive and untrue view. James Bond has moved on from that, because 50 years have passed since then and people have realised that it's wrong. Christianity should move on from some of the bible teachings, because thousands of years have passed since then and people have realised that it's wrong.


    Many religious people do realize this and act accordingly. However there are always conservative, "outdated" people, like in ideologies.

    But that this is a derailment of the thread I think no one can disagree with, so lets stop here before we get a new travesty like the CH-thread...
  • Posts: 12,837
    jobo wrote: »
    Many religious people do realize this and act accordingly. However there are always conservative, "outdated" people, like in ideologies

    That's true, I know. That's why I gave my grandparents and adopted mum as examples. I just think that instead of some, it should be all religious people realizing this, that's all.
  • Posts: 14,844
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Btw, wat do you think of Fleming and his views on homoexuality? ;)

    Yes by todays standards he was homophobic (and racist) but that's not his fault. It's just the time he was alive in. Just like the bible. It was written thousands of years ago. But we as a society have moved on now and religious people should do too. James Bond doesn't go round claiming that gays and lesbians are "mixed up" people who only exist because we gave the vote to women anymore, because that's a ridiculously offensive and untrue view. James Bond has moved on from that, because 50 years have passed since then and people have realised that it's wrong. Christianity should move on from some of the bible teachings, because thousands of years have passed since then and people have realised that it's wrong.


    Many religious people do realize this and act accordingly. However there are always conservative, "outdated" people, like in ideologies.

    But that this is a derailment of the thread I think no one can disagree with, so lets stop here before we get a new travesty like the CH-thread..
    .

    To be fair, CH turned into a debate about religion as a whole because of the nature of the attack.

    In this case (and to come back to the topic), Christians were murdered in a church (and for those accusing me of going all atheistic here, I am fully conscious that the victims were theists and practicing ones, this is not in dispute). But it was not their faith that was attacked, whatever some Republican candidates are saying now. It was racial intolerance, not religious one (of course, both are not mutually exclusive).

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Religion was directly relevant to the CH attacks, as were guns. The attackers were using a bastardized version of Islam to justify their attacks, and will continue to do so.

    Religion could very well be partially to blame in this instance as well, not just guns. As I mentioned earlier, there are very strong religious leanings among White supremacists in the US, particularly influenced by the Christian Identity belief system (the Council of Conservative Citizens, who influenced this killer, are believers in the Christian Identity). Here too, a bastardization of religion (among other things) is used to influence, motivate & mobilize many people to intolerant viewpoints.

    So religion is relevant to these discussions. It does not appear out of nowhere. It is a part of the problem. That may be inconvenient for those who are religious or have religious leanings, but it is also an inconvenient fact, whether we like it or not and it must be confronted.

    As in the case of the constitution, we have people leaning on and misunderstanding the overall concepts in outdated (I'm fully in agreement with @thelivingroyale here and congratulate his adoptive mum's outlook on the whole thing.....I wish more were like her actually) texts, which they continue to take as gospel.

    This murderer's world view was a terrible one (see the link I posted earlier where he espouses his beliefs) and unfortunately he is not alone. There are more and more of these nutbags in the US and in Europe too (except they don't have such easy access to guns, thankfully).
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 7,502
    My point was never that religion is completely irrelevant to the subject of either thread, however I believe one tedious discussion lasting 40 + pages is enough. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.