UK Government Instituted Automatic Email Deletion Program Right Before Its Freedom Of Information Law Came Into Effect
Researcher Headed To Australian Supreme Court In Attempt To Hold Google Responsible For Posts At Ripoff Reports [Updated]

Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All

Too Much Free Time

from the pinhead dept

Thu, Jun 25th 2015 06:04am -

You just knew it was going to happen. Not long ago, Dylann Roof walked into a historic African American church in Charleston, South Carolina, prayed with several parishioners there for some time, and then proceed to shoot most of them dead. So many of these stories are horrific not only for the violence that gets perpetrated, but because we’re typically left with the most vexing of questions: why? Why did two Colorado teenagers shoot up their school? Why would a young man walk into an East Coast elementary school and shoot children? Why?

The South Carolina massacre is different in that respect. We know exactly why Dylann Roof killed nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans. Oh, also video games, if you ask Martin Luther King III and Bill O’Reilly, obviously.

“Look at video games,” King said during the segment. “Our children play video games and 7 out of 10 of them are violent. Some of our movies are very violent, and we want to see more and more violence.”

O’Reilly agreed with King, noting that there needs to be more pushback, more people need to argue that it’s “not a good thing to devote your leisure time to violent pursuits.”

This has to end. With the available evidence continuing to demonstrate that any link between violent media and real-life violence being tenuous at best, the rush to drag an entertainment medium into the discussion of a self-admitted racist killing blacks simply because they were black is absolutely insane. There’s no wondering the why here. There’s no linking video games to this tragedy. The conversation doesn’t belong in any relevant discussion about Dylann Roof. And it’s not like O’reilly really wants entertainment mediums saddled with the responsibility for what evil people do.

You’ll notice that O’Reilly (and it isn’t just him, I can assure you) is happy to bring up his own constitutional rights to free speech when challenged but have no issue dragging an art form and entertainment medium into the spotlight after a tragedy that had nothing to do with video games. And, look, this isn’t a Fox News or Bill O’Reilly problem. Plenty of major news outlets are happy to placate older adults that need a tight little box to put tragedies in, something that can be blamed. Video games apparently are destined to fill that role until these idiots retire and the next generation of news people are in place, because those people will have grown up gaming if the statistics and demographics are any indication.

So I guess we just wait them out.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

119 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
119 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hmm

I always found it humorous that some people rant about video games making kids violent but they turn a complete blind eye to high school and college sports programs that often actively encourage cultures of aggression and bullying. The fights that occurred at my school were more often between jocks or jocks and someone else. The physical bullying that I saw was often committed by jocks. But somehow actively trying to injure other people in football is healthy aggression and simulating the injury of imaginary people leads to mass murder (even if the video game milieu involved “justified” killings such as those of armed criminals, terrorists, or enemies in a time of war).

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hmm

I always found it humorous that some people rant about video games making kids violent but they turn a complete blind eye to high school and college sports programs that often actively encourage cultures of aggression and bullying.

Football isn’t about rape! It’s about violently dominating anyone that stands between you and what you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM2RUVnTlvs

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You realize that most racist, white supremacists are Democrats, right? Guess who the first Republican president was? Guess who voted against the civil rights acts not all that many years ago? Guess who helped found the Democrat party and owned slaves? So the rewrite of history you racists keep attempting doesn’t work as most people know the party of racism starts with a D.

Baron von Robber says:

Re: Re: Re:

Nice red herring. So many lately that ocean stopped rising.

“most racist, white supremacists are Democrats, right?” Are you shitting us? Are from 1960? Those back then were called Dixiecrats. Guess what party the left and joined?

” So the rewrite of history you racists keep attempting doesn’t work as most people know the party of racism starts with a D.”

You owe me a Irony-O-Meter

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Uh, yea, how is this news? The Dems have suckered the people into believing they are helping them. Instead they pay them to sit down, shut up and like it. If they truly wanted to help, they would be creating opportunity rather than doing the opposite. Someday, hopefully, people will wake up to that and realize the Dems are not who they claim to be.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

So a video of an obviously biased historical revisionist who provides no citations for his claims and is trying to pitch his book several times throughout the video is the only refutation you can offer to Wikipedia entries that cite many reputable and some peer-reviewed academic publications?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“You realize that most racist, white supremacists are Democrats, right?”

Because we live in a dynamic world where everything changes all the time … would it be too difficult to provide data in support of your claims relative to the present time frame rather than simplistic references to people who lived hundreds of years ago and expect us to accept your ridiculous assumption that nothing has changed over that time period?

Digger says:

Video Games are better than Bugs Bunny

How many times did Daffy get shot in the face, or the Coyote get blown up.

Previous generations had cartoon violence, war footage, movies like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, go further back with the likes of black and white Dracula and the Wolf Man or creature from the black lagoon.

Violence is in our nature, people who’ve never played a single video game perform horrific acts of violence.

Hell, the Bible includes stories about entire cities being essentially nuked where all the people ended up being columns of ash.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

In what way

He said

He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.

Those things are bad – yes but it doesn’t explain his behaviour because most racist bigots aren’t willing to do something that will put them in jail for life (at best).

So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.

I see what you mean. I see it as hinging on what you mean by “why”. Geigner was, I think, explaining the guy’s motivation – more or less what would he say if asked why he did it (and he was honest about it). You seem to be coming at it from a more scientific perspective – what factors explain how this person’s behavior differs from everyone else’s. They’re slightly different questions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Video games are commonplace these days and just about everyone plays them. A large majority of the AAA franchises are violent in nature, so it’s safe to say a large majority of young Americans have played or currently play violent games.
The number of those people committing violence themselves is so infinitesimally small that any correlation could be considered within the margin for error.

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: You have to blame games

Really? How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects? Good grief. I’d say the fact the pastor banned guns in her church was more to blame than guns. These types of mass shootings almost always take place in “gun free zones” like schools or movie theaters. You think that’s just a strange coincidence? These sickos know people are unarmed and easy targets.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects?

If he hadn’t had a trigger to pull, he might have found it a bit harder to kill so many people…

“Might.” That’s all you’ve got? He could’ve learned explosives tech (a la Timothy McVay or Unabomber), or just used knives or swords, or chemical weaponry (Carbon Monoxide, Ammonia, …). They’d be just as dead.

You really need to get over that fetish of yours.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:2 How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects?

Have you looked at the rate of bombings, sword attacks and chemical attack lately? They’re orders of magnitude lower than fatal gun incidents. So your coulda/woulda comparison makes no sense.

If you can accept that the rate of gun-related fatalities in the US is ridiculously high, then you need to consider the two options for reducing the numbers:

1. Convince people to shoot each other less often, or
2. Make it harder to get guns

Which do you think is most likely to succeed? Human nature says option 2.

If you reject both option. does that mean you consider the rate of guns deaths an acceptable price to pay to protect gun ownership?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Convincing people to shoot each other less often.

If you were serious you’d suggest convincing people to running each other over or into each other with their motor vehicles less often.

Also, how many gun deaths per capita do you think is too many? Care to apply that quantity regarding bathtubs? Swimming pools? Stepladders? SCUBA gear? Surfboards? Because I think you won’t.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 motor vehicles

Have you forgotten the lesson I knocked into your head last time about the difference between constructive tools and destructive weaponry?

Assumes facts not in evidence. A tool is not constructive or destructive. It’s just a lump of inanimate matter. The person wielding the tool is what you should be concerned with.

It’s becoming tedious listening to you play that same silly song over and over. I think we get it: you’ve a pathological disgust for guns and you’re never going to allow yourself to question that assumption. Fine.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Knocked into my head?

You mean this lesson?

I wouldn’t call it a lesson. Repeating your rhetoric over and over again and failing to address counterarguments does not a lesson make.

I’m pretty sure that you just hate guns and want to blame all the worlds woes on them. Those zones that are gun-free yet still have problems, because America still has guns.

Bring what you will, but if you want to convince me, you’re going to need some better points.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: otherwise you might have to blame guns

Apparently Bill O’Reilly’s error was not simplifying rampage killings to a single cause, but simplifying it to the wrong cause.

If he wasn’t given a gun, he may have found another way to acquire one.

Or built a bomb.

Or drove a vehicle through the church.

Or laced the water supply with anthrax.

Or made use of fifty gallons of gasoline, which is very easy to obtain.

Lawrence D’Oliveiro, I know you think the firearm is the great American demon, but the human brain is far more creative than you believe. Banning guns will not solve this problem.

MrTroy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: otherwise you might have to blame guns

Banning guns will not solve this problem.

Obviously no simple answer is going to solve a complex problem, but what if it reduced the problem?

Also, to hearken back to a recent thread, what if “banning guns” doesn’t actually stop you from enjoying responsible gun use in many reasonable ways?

Neither of these are hypotheticals, in case you’re wondering.

Also, how many gun deaths per capita do you think is too many? Care to apply that quantity regarding bathtubs? Swimming pools? Stepladders? SCUBA gear? Surfboards? Because I think you won’t.

I think you underestimate how much time and energy goes into preventing each of those categories of deaths. Perhaps time and money would have much better long-term benefits from being spent on improving mental health conditions and support in the community (all communities) than in controlling guns (actually, no perhaps, it’s undeniably true), but that’s not enough reason (for me) not to control guns as well, especially when the consequences of properly implemented gun control are so slight.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 But at what cost, Mr. Troy? BUT AT WHAT COST?

It might reduce the problem. But we don’t know how much, and it will widen the portal for further bans of other allegedly dangerous materials (e.g. video games mentioned above, though gay-friendly children’s books are a big target, as are contraceptives)

And I’m pretty sure your standards for enjoyment are not up to par with the standards that gun enthusiasts have. Many of the other commenters think that enthusiasts should be content with computer simulations, or rented guns or slingshots. It’s avoiding the issue that you’re still invoking your will on their liberties.

And you’re doing so based on distrust, so it’s only fair that we distrust you right back. What’s to stop you from expanding your regulations beyond your original mild restrictions or beyond guns to other devices? What’s to stop you from using these laws to implement your religious morality on people who don’t share it?

A look into recent history (The Hobby Lobby affair, The FBI’s shit-flipping over practically-impenetrable cryptography, countless challenges of countless books and this freaking article right here) shows that none of this is hypothetical either.

So, yeah, I appreciate your concern, and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people who do not respect the risk that comes with owning a gun. And I agree that the NRA has become something of a bag of dicks that does not represent the gun community well at all. But in the long game, gun control is not the answer, especially so as the age of 3D printing approaches and custom gun parts can be prototyped locally, rather than by a major manufacturer.

And I relentlessly distrust anyone pushing for more gun control in this convesation to not, once their agenda is furthered, wipe their hands of the Charleston massacre deciding okay we did something. That’s what O’Reilly is trying to do by accusing video games. That’s what Obama is trying to do by pushing gun control.

The Charleston Massacre is not another rampage killing to be swept under the rug like so many others. And blaming guns here is being used to do exactly that.

MrTroy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 But at what cost, Mr. Troy? BUT AT WHAT COST?

It might reduce the problem. But we don’t know how much, and it will widen the portal for further bans of other allegedly dangerous materials (e.g. video games mentioned above, though gay-friendly children’s books are a big target, as are contraceptives)

And I’m pretty sure your standards for enjoyment are not up to par with the standards that gun enthusiasts have. Many of the other commenters think that enthusiasts should be content with computer simulations, or rented guns or slingshots. It’s avoiding the issue that you’re still invoking your will on their liberties.

Controlling one thing will be used as a stepping stone for introducing more control, you’re right. I don’t have a good answer for that other than contacting your government representative regularly to let them know how you’d like to be represented. An imperfect answer, I’d like to find better.

So, yeah, I appreciate your concern, and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people who do not respect the risk that comes with owning a gun. And I agree that the NRA has become something of a bag of dicks that does not represent the gun community well at all. But in the long game, gun control is not the answer, especially so as the age of 3D printing approaches and custom gun parts can be prototyped locally, rather than by a major manufacturer.

3D-printed guns will only get better, but right now they seem to be more of a risk to their wielder than anyone else, unless the maker has a degree of expertise, see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-26/3d-printing-fact-file/6429816

I will still hold up Australia as an example that gun control can help. It may not be the answer, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be part of the answer. Nutjob control would also help, but unfortunately governments willing to invest in good societal platforms for mental health issues, equality and education are few and far between.

In terms of any arguments that gun control doesn’t work, I’ll just handball to John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

And I relentlessly distrust anyone pushing for more gun control in this convesation to not, once their agenda is furthered, wipe their hands of the Charleston massacre deciding okay we did something. That’s what O’Reilly is trying to do by accusing video games. That’s what Obama is trying to do by pushing gun control.

The Charleston Massacre is not another rampage killing to be swept under the rug like so many others. And blaming guns here is being used to do exactly that.

I agree that any simple answer is wrong, or at least insufficient. All I can suggest is to be the change you want to see in the world, but the depressing aspect is that’s probably what motivated this guy to action.

Richard (profile) says:

More violence

“Look at video games,” King said during the segment. “Our children play video games and 7 out of 10 of them are violent. Some of our movies are very violent, and we want to see more and more violence.”

If tha assessment was right then you would expect to see FAR MORE incidents of this type.

Incidentally I don’t think your analysis is correct. Simply to say “He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.” is not an adequate explanation – it is simply badmouthing someone for not subscribing to your own worldview.

If you want an explanation of this kind of violence (ie the kind not perpetrated for personal gain or because of an individual grievance) then it would go something like this.

1. He subscribes to a certain worldview.

2. His knowledge of that worldview leads him to believe that it requires or approves of violence in the cause.

3. His personality type is the kind that will actually act on the basis of his beliefs – even though it is extremely disadvantageous to him personally.

Fortunately personalities of the type in (3) are quite rare – otherwise every extreme racist with access to a gun would go on a killing spree – so your analysis fails for the same reason that Bill O’Reilly’s does.

Anonymous Coward says:

if video games are a problem we are sitting on a powder keg since millions of people worldwide play video games.

Especially with all those app games now.

Maybe we should send every phone app creator to jail for supporting massacres.

If I have to say that’s sarcasm that’s just as depressing as people that blame video games for people that would have committed the massacre regardless of what they saw or did prior.

Guardian says:

its the oppisite of what they say

because i fi dint have violent video game to purge stress from i might just ya lose it with all this bullcrap going on….i find a taking frustrations out on a virtual world to relive the stress and thus make the world a better place i bet this goes on far more then they want to admit and i think they know it and want violence to happen cause it will justify these two idiot commentators exists and more importantly money they get.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: its the oppisite of what they say

because i fi dint have violent video game to purge stress from i might just ya lose it with all this bullcrap going on…

And then ya just have to asplode!!! Uh, huh. Video gamer spends every waking moment shooting phantoms, then when that’s not enough, decides to hunt real humans. Chyaa, right. Maye he was just a sick fuck and should have been killed years ago, but gaming helped him keep it together.

tqk (profile) says:

Gamers grown up will stop this?

Video games apparently are destined to fill that role until these idiots retire and the next generation of news people are in place, because those people will have grown up gaming if the statistics and demographics are any indication.

Good luck with that. Lots of pot smoking hippies grew up to be insurance salesmen and other captains of industry, all heartily in favor of the War On Drugs. They may be gamers now, but nothing’s stopping them from becoming curmudgeons*, as many of them likely will.

* “a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas”

Dave says:

Video games to blame, not guns?

Only in ‘merica would someone blame a tragedy like this on a digital representation of violence, but not guns.

You know guns? The things that are are specifically designed for one purpose and one purpose only – to kill REAL people.

So lets put limitations on freedom of speech/artistic expression, but not guns. Guns aren’t the problem, right ‘merica? It’s video games.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Blaming even guns is a distraction to the real causes for rampage killings.

If we’re going to ban guns on the premise that humans cannot be trusted to use them responsibly, then there are countless other things that should also be banned.

We should limit not only human access to swimming pools and power tools, but also rough terrain (e.g. national parks), motor vehicles, many home appliances and bathtubs.

And if the average citizen cannot be trusted with firearms, how can we trust the police or the military? I suspect that the homicide per capita for law enforcement is way higher than it is for civilians, even when you include rampage killers.

What’s more interesting to me, though, is that homicides in general are way down while we seem to be having a lot of rampage killers. That doesn’t sound like guns are the problem, since we have more guns than we did, say, in the seventies when homicides were up.

(Honestly, I haven’t looked up to confirm if our current rate of rampage killers has been high in the last few years compared to other eras. Does anyone have any data on this?)

JMT says:

Re: Re: Blaming even guns is a distraction to the real causes for rampage killings.

“If we’re going to ban guns…”

No point reading any further, because I assume the rest of your argument is based on this strawman.

Nobody is trying to BAN guns, only make it harder for people who are not responsible or competent enough to operate one to get them.

MrTroy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Banning guns

The United States has the right to bear arms for some very serious reasons. It’s up to those who govern us to create a society in which we aren’t motivated to exercise and defend that right.

And what if those reasons are not what you think they are? What if they are to provide the government with access to a militia force specifically to put down uprisings?

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_scholarship

p649:

The Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose,” the Supreme Court declared in United States v. Miller, was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of … [militia] forces.” [307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).]

p654:

It is difficult, nonetheless, to find support in the Constitution for the notion that the Second Amendment is a license for the people to resist and triumph over government at any level by means of force and violence. To the contrary, the Constitution is replete with provisions intended to quell uprisings. For example, Congress is empowered to call out the militia-the very force envisioned to resist usurpations of power-to suppress insurrections and rebellions. Significantly, treason is the only crime the Framers believed important enough for the Constitution to condemn explicitly. In defining the crime, for example, the Constitution expressly lists “levying war” against the United States as a manifestation of the offense. Thus, the theory that the Second Amendment contemplates armed confrontations against the government is seriously undermined.

p662:

Advocates who insist that the Second Amendment is still a viable check on tyranny often suggest that lightly-armed civilians could defeat modern armies by mounting a guerrilla war, selectively pointing to various twentieth century conflicts as evidence of the same. In reality, however, no insurgents armed only with the sort of personal weapons contemplated by the Second Amendment have prevailed, in a military sense, over any authentically modern army.

Most of the rest is talking about the very limited likelihood of success of an civilian armed revolution, particularly compared to the remarkable success that nonviolent resistance has had recently. Interesting read though.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "The remarkable success that nonviolent resistance has had recently"

Oh do tell me more about his remarkable success of nonviolent resistance. Have we been able yet to cease our torture program (which is still going on, it’s just classified and doesn’t use waterboarding anymore) or our mass surveillance program (also still active) or our systemic police brutality and legal overreach through non-violent means?

History has shown us that when it comes to really big issues such as slavery, systemized genocide and immense wealth disparity violence has become necessary.

To be fair, I didn’t read Cl. Dunlaps treatise, nor do I trust him as an authority. I have read numerous COIN experts who point out that insurrections are hard to put down when the people have a legitimate grievance.

(I’ve also noted that guns serve as an auxiliary function when it comes to revolution or other asymmetric theaters, which depend on sabotage, mischief — or in many cases, terrorism — to further their ends. Ideally, such methods are achieved more quietly than modern guns allow)

And in the US I think they have a few legitimate grievances, starting with their own representatives refusing to listen to them.

And as I pure liberty is just cause to have no restrictions on guns. So far, the government, the press, the moral guardians have all been poor judges of what is good for the people and what isn’t. Why should I trust them to decide regarding guns when they’ve failed so many other times?

drwho28 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Banning guns

The police and those who are in the National Guard, especially here in South Carolina, tend to be those who most exercise their personal right to own firearms separate from their jobs. Whether it was intended or not the pseudo-militia that is the modern police force and members of the military own most of the guns and would render a civilian military uprising a lost cause. the whole reason that new social movements in europe have succeeded in garnering support is with legal fights and through electronic warfare.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Banning guns

The United States has the right to bear arms for some very serious reasons.

Reasons that are both massively out of date and arguably come at a very steep price.

You may think that, but I’m pretty sure the Apache nation still hates your guts and would love to see the back of you if you didn’t have overwhelming firepower on your side.

Hate takes many forms, some of which can take centuries to be seen in the raw. I’m Canadian, but even our Natives/Aboriginals are still pretty peed at us invaders, and we were relatively nice about it all compared to how the US treated its Natives. If there’s ever another Little Big Horn, I won’t be on Custer’s side. He was a supreme asshole in pretty much every way possible. Our forbears treated Natives little better than rodents. Black slaves had it good in comparison.

You definitely do need the right to bear arms in the US. Pockets of the US population are only barely under control.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The same old nonsense

Just because you can’t make sense of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense at all.

I’d try to clarify it but I think you are compelled to dismiss any opinion not your own.

To be fair, I may be in similar straits, as I said I don’t trust others to decide for me what is or isn’t too dangerous. That credit was blown with AD&D, Rock-&-Roll and Video Games being instruments of Satan.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Your point being...???

Jim Jefferies doesn’t know what an assault rifle is?

But he is right about one thing: I like guns is a valid reason to allow for people to own guns.

Now I don’t own a gun, and nor do I particularly want one. but we get a lot of people (like Mr. O’Reilly, above) telling us what we should be allowed to have and what we shouldn’t.

To Hell with them all.

I don’t trust anybody, including Bill, including you, including Mr. Jeffries to tell me what I can or cannot have. Even if you are terrified of guns, I can assure you there are people equally terrified of video games or violent movies or rock-&-roll or AD&D or psychotherapy. More so, actually.

So no. Much that I know that I still have freedom of speech by seeing that far more offensive things are being said without arrests being made (or not, as has been recent history), I can similarly expect that they’re not going to take away my video games or my music or my mocha lattes or my computer on the basis that they aren’t collecting guns yet.

You don’t have the expertise nor, thankfully, the authority to decide what is dangerous or not or what people in a liberty-minded nation should or should not be allowed to have.

Anonymous Coward says:

Unlike other

mass killings, this perpetrator is still alive.

It’s easy to offer baseless assumptions or “talking points” if the shooter is dead and and you guess what he does in his sparetime.

“He must have trained on those murder games”
– “No i only play Candy Crush and Farmville”

It will be interesting to see how pundits will treat this if it goes to court and it’s shown that he is a racist asshole or if his lawyers try to trott it out and blame videogames to reduce culpability.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Responsibility and motive

This may be just the armchair sociologist in me, but I’m dissatisfied with racist bigoted self-aggrandizing asshole as sufficient to explain motive. In this case, means and opportunity are easy enough to come by in Charleston (concealed carry with permit, free glovebox carry). And racist bigoted self-aggrandizing assholes are plenty enough, yet we’re not seeing weekly or even monthly raids on gatherings of black people by rampage killers. Were

Contrary to every Agatha Christie whodunnit ever, it takes a certain degree (and quality) of crazy to murder. That or desperation. Either way he was more broken than merely a seething hatred for black people.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 And then, this happened.

Fuck.

ACK.

Disappointed, human race.

Hey, no need to tar the whole species all for a few knuckle draggers. In fact, I very much doubt any of the perps are female which leaves you owing an entire gender an apology.

The US certainly is exceptional in many ways. Go big or don’t go (no, I won’t quote Yoda). So, we’ve got a Race War boiling over (again!) south of the 49th parallel. I thought we fixed that when the Woodstock Generation got loud, or maybe when Rodney King wound up in the news. You even made MLK’s birthday a national holiday. Didn’t the South get the memo?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

UK Government Instituted Automatic Email Deletion Program Right Before Its Freedom Of Information Law Came Into Effect
Researcher Headed To Australian Supreme Court In Attempt To Hold Google Responsible For Posts At Ripoff Reports [Updated]
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...