Another US shooting: 9 dead in SC church

[bitslice]

There is a big contextual difference between gang bangers (who know the risks of their lifestyles) killing each other in drive-bys and innocent people being mowed down with bullets whilst going about their daily lives.

I understand a death is still a death but it annoys me when people imply events like this shouldn't get that much attention because other people have been killed with guns too.

I'm not saying it shouldn't get attention or that I'm trying to point the finger at one racial group here (craterloads et al ), I'm saying it is lame to make political capitol out of this by making out it is all down to the free availability of guns, when really it is about racial tension.

These people didn't get shot because some mental kid got hold of a gun, but because they were black.

Obama has an gun control agenda here, and he is ignoring the bigger picture.

He thinks he can solve it by creating mixed housing and by getting people out of the ghettos, but white people want the exact opposite and will keep moving in order to segregate themselves. If you look at racial maps for the US nobody lives in mixed areas, even down to block level.

The same thing is happening in the UK now, the government requires the addition of affordable homes and the planners try to find ways around this. White people just end up moving out of mixed estates anyway.

 

[estebanrey]

I'm not saying it shouldn't get attention or that I'm trying to point the finger at one racial group here (craterloads et al ), I'm saying it is lame to make political capitol out of this by making out it is all down to the free availability of guns, when really it is about racial tension.

When Sandy Hook happened they said it wasn't about guns, it was about poor mental health diagnoses.

When Aurora happened they said it wasn't about guns, it was about violent movies and video games.

When Charleston happened they said it wasn't about guns, it was about racial tensions.

Eventually, maybe, hopfully, Americans will tackle the assult-rifle shaped elephant in the room.

 

[steve55]

It has been tampered with, probably via photoshop. For those that don’t know what they’re looking at, it’s an Error Level Analysis. It highlights areas where the jpeg compression differs. The flags on Roof’s jacket have a faint glow around them, indicating that they may have been added after the photo was taken, i.e. it’s a photoshop. There is always something off about these mass shootings.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was yet another orchestrated plan to ban guns or incite some race war.

That picture is from his facebook account uploaded on may 21

 

[bitslice]

Eventually, maybe, hopfully, Americans will tackle the assult-rifle shaped elephant in the room.

Obama is going to do squat about guns under the American political system,
so he'd better start with the root causes, which are

poor mental health diagnoses.
violent movies and video games (well, culture in general really)
racial tensions

 

[estebanrey]

That picture is from his facebook account uploaded on may 21

But...but...but the CIA and the FBI probably set that account up before using their photoshopped picture!!!!!

Seriously though, there is no point arguing with a CTer. Their mind is made up and they'll just keep shifting the goal posts when you debunk them.

Scientist = "A vital part of my theory has been proved wrong. I will therefore look at all the evidence again and see if there is another conclusion"

Conspiracy Theorist = "A vital part of my theory has been proved wrong. I will therefore ignore it and just present something else I found but stick to my conclusion rigidly"

edit:, just as predicted...

http://www.infowars.com/false-flag-dylann-roofs-barely-used-facebook-page-likely-created-in-2015/

 

[steve55]

But...but...but the CIA and the FBI probably set that account up before using their photoshopped picture!!!!!

Seriously though, there is no point arguing with a CTer. Their mind is made up and they'll just keep shifting the goal posts when you debunk them.

Scientist = "A vital part of my theory has been proved wrong. I will therefore look at all the evidence again and see if there is another conclusion"

Conspiracy Theorist = "A vital part of my theory has been proved wrong. I will therefore ignore it and just present something else I found but stick to my conclusion rigidly"

Listen pal, stop throwing round the buzz word Conspiracy Theorist and deal with the facts.

Facts are, this photo is faked, by whom and why remains a mystery.

 

[bitslice]

Well it suggests that there is somethng wrong with American society, if a large proportion of it's citizens are consistantly suspicious of the government's motives.

And you do have to debunk something before you can claim it is debunkable

 

[Craterloads]

I'm not saying it shouldn't get attention or that I'm trying to point the finger at one racial group here (craterloads et al )

It's a little odd that certain demographic of people usually role out the "black people kill black people too" every time there is a massacre or killing of black people by white people/police when it is completely irrelevant to events unfolding.

Black people are mainly killed by other blacks, and trying to limit guns is going to do nothing to stop this.

A) debatable B) what's the relevance here?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...is-not-a-valid-answer-to-Ferguson-or-Anything

 

[Sankari]

Right, but if you shoot someone because they are black, or because they looked at you funny yesterday, what does it matter?

It matters because it determines what you're charged with, and may be used in court to determine whether or not you're likely to re-offend.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

 

[estebanrey]

Listen pal, stop throwing round the buzz word Conspiracy Theorist and deal with the facts.

Facts are, this photo is faked, by whom and why remains a mystery.

No, it isn't a "fact" the picture was altered. Even your own post says....

indicating that they may have been added after the photo was taken

How about the FAQ from the website you got that tool from....

Having that said the algorithm is not exactly reliable, especially with images that have been rescaled and compressed often/intensely. So take it with a pinch of salt and feel free to have a look at the simple source code.

..or you could test it yourself. Here is a picture of a barbecue I took and uploaded in almost full, uncompressed quality...

So are you saying I photoshopped the sausages in? Let's do a more like-for-like test shall we? I found this picture of an old bloke wearing a bomber jacket adorned with badges, look what happens when I run it through the tool...

What do you say, this ever-so-reliable tool is suggesting the badges on his jacket were photoshopped too

As I said, CTers jump straight to a conclusion and don't bother checking their own evidence.

So honestly, what do you think is more likely...

A) The badges on Roof's jacket have been digitally added to an otherwise innocent photo.

B) The tool you used is less than perfect, especially on highly compressed images and seemingly where you get a contrast in colours.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Two words: Gun control

We can't judge the suspect's gun control until we know what percentage of rounds fired hit the intended targets.

 

[StriderX]

 

[Bensons]

Sounds like Obamacare is going to do something about gun access.

 

[estebanrey]

The slow and painful demise of the word "terrorist", using it on everything that moves is a good way to lose its impact.

What he actually is, funnily enough is a murderer.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The definition of terrorist (someone who uses violence for political gain) perfectly fits Roof.

If this had been a Muslim who did this, and who said "Infidels need to go", would you be so quick to defend him from being called a terrorist?

 

[Richand]

*beaten like a black American*

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Listen pal, stop throwing round the buzz word Conspiracy Theorist and deal with the facts.

Facts are, this photo is faked, by whom and why remains a mystery.

Pal!

That photo is probably not photoshopped. Anyway, who's to say that he didn't photoshop the flags on there himself?!?! He's a young man, I'm sure he's more than capable of using photoshop.

False flags really boil my blood. The detract from the seriousness of these crimes, and it's just embarrassing that people believe them.

 

[Bensons]

So what if it was put there by someone else, the crime he comitted was far more serious.

 

[estebanrey]

False flags really boil my blood. The detract from the seriousness of these crimes, and it's just embarrassing that people believe them.

Quite, and they're conveniently only ever brought up when it suits the CTers political agenda.

Alex Jones and his website Infowars are going full force on this one. Could it possibly be because Jones is a well known gun NRA supporting gun lover and this story dents his argument for guns for all?

 

[Orionaut]

Oh look that old misdirection, black on black crime

Oh look, that old misdirection Gun control.

The point I was attempting to make is that the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime/murder in the USA is actually very poor. And yet the gun control activists always argue in the light of events like this that stricter gun control will make violent crime and this sort of spree killing magically disappear. (Which is actually pretty rare, that's why it is global news. If it was commonplace it wouldn't be newsworthy)

Indeed, many of the states with the highest levels of gun ownership actually have the lowest levels of violent crime. there are plenty of areas in the states that are as safe as SW Surrey despite Guns being more common than i-phones. (You just have to keep away from the obvious stupidly "High Risk" neighbourhoods)

(There are plenty of articles on wiki on this that make state by state statistics available)

Every time something like this happens the activists cry gun control while ignoring other factors that are actually rather more relevant to the issue of violent crime in the USA

There are other stats that correlate very well with the incidence of violent crime in the USA, they are available on Wiki too and they bare little relationship with levels of gun ownership.

Choosing to ignore these rather more relevant factors because they are "Politically sensitive" basically means that there is no hope of ever resolving them.